# WWII submarines...which was the better one?



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

Of the fighting parties in WWII, which had the better submarine force. Which of those from USN, Kriegsmarine, RN, IJN, RM and so on was the better weapon system as say today? How does a Type IX compare to a Gato class sub? Did the French and Russia have something to show?


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2007)

The KriegsMarine hands down. The Type VIII Type IX subs were the best in the world before the Type XXI was introduced.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2007)

With the obvious exception of the Type XXI, I would go for the US Fleet boats as being the best.

Their combination of range, firepower and technical equipment was second to none.

The most successful was one of the German Type IXb versions, I cannot remember which one. On average, every boat in the class sank over 100,000 tons.


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2007)

I beg you pardon Glider, no US boat possessed the same quality equipment as the German subs. The German subs were equipped with accoustic homing torpedoes, anti radar coatings, schnorkel, Zeiss optics, advanced sonar etc etc..

The Type VII Type IX were techincally second to none other than the Type XXI sub.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

Which would be in the same class as the German Type VII and Type IX subs, the IX was a ocean going sub, right, wasn't the VII that too, as it was found on the east coast of US? How about the computer or what it was called on the US subs?


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2007)

The computer ??

If you're talking about the targeting computer the German US subs used similar systems.


----------



## AVRoe (Dec 30, 2007)

While Japan built many submarines that were larger than those of other Navies, the three Sen Toku boats were far larger than anything ever seen before. Some 60% larger than the largest contemporary American submarine, USS Argonaut, they had more than twice her range. The most unusual feature was that they each carried three floatplane bombers (and parts for a fourth), a feat never achieved by any other class of submarine. These aircraft folded to fit into the 115-foot cylindrical hangar, which was slightly offset to starboard and opened forward to access the catapult. The huge double hull was formed of parallel cylindrical hulls so that it had a peculiar lazy-eight cross section, and may have inspired the Soviet Typhoon-class built some 40 years later. Although aircraft must be considered their primary armament, they also carried a formidable torpedo battery and the usual 14cm deck gun. Anti-aircraft armament included ten 25mm cannons in three triple mounts and one single. Each of these boats had radar and a snorkel.

The aircraft were the Aichi M6A1 Seiran, also carried by the Type AM submarines. Each of these monoplanes could carry one aerial torpedo or a bomb weighing up to 800kg. Powered by the 1,400hp Atsuta 32 engine (similar to Germany's DB601) they had a top speed of 295mph and were credited with a range of 642 nautical miles. *The Sen Toku *submarines carried four aerial torpedoes, three 800kg bombs, and twelve 250kg bombs to arm these aircraft. These aircraft had their assembly points coated with fluorescent paint to ease assembly in the dark, so four trained men could prepare an aircraft for launch in seven minutes. All three aircraft could be prepared, armed, and launched in 45 minutes.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

That's the one I mean....wasn't too sure what it was called. Don't know much about subs Soren, but I thought that the one used on US subs were superior....am I wrong? In which ways were they similar and different?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2007)

I am going to have to go with the Kriegsmarine U-Boots. Between the Type VII all the way to the Type XXI the Kriegsmarine possessed great Submarines.

The US Navy also had a great Fleet Subs that saw great use in the Pacific.

The main reason that I will go with the Kriegsmarine U-Boots is because of there use of the Wolf Packs. They had great tactics and for quite some time were able to cause great fear in the Atlantic.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> I beg you pardon Glider, no US boat possessed the same quality equipment as the German subs. The German subs were equipped with accoustic homing torpedoes, anti radar coatings, schnorkel, Zeiss optics, advanced sonar etc etc..
> 
> The Type VII Type IX were techincally second to none other than the Type XXI sub.



Accoustic homing torpedo's - certainly but late in the war the USA had these as well
anti radar coatings - that didn't work
schnorkel - certainly but not on all
Zeiss optics - certainly but outranged and outclassed by the US radar
Advanced sonar - but matched by US Sonar

What the Germans lacked were
Air Search radar
Surface search radar
Sonar that was designed to penetrate minefields
Torpedo tubes - 6 in the Type IX, 5 in the Type VII, 10 in the US Fleet class
Torpedo's - 14 in the type VII, 22 in the Type IX, 24 in the Fleet Class
Secure line of sight communications by night.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

XXI is an awesome machine Adler, but I have to say of those that saw most combat the Type IX-D2 is my favorite, like U-181. Hardegen was rather successful with his IXB U-123....


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

Glider said:


> Accoustic homing torpedo's - certainly but late in the war the USA had these as well
> anti radar coatings - that didn't work
> schnorkel - certainly but not on all
> Zeiss optics - certainly but outranged and outclassed by the US radar
> ...



1: What was the anti radar coating made of?
2: Zeiss? I take it that you mean the periskope?
3: Sonar that was designed to penetrate minefields? How does that work?
4: 10 tubes and 24 torpedoes? Was there any room left for the crew?
5: Secure line of sight communications by night? Periskope again, right? What is it and how does it work?


----------



## Graeme (Dec 30, 2007)

Glider said:


> anti radar coatings - that didn't work





Lucky13 said:


> 1: What was the anti radar coating made of?


----------



## Soren (Dec 31, 2007)

> Accoustic homing torpedo's - certainly but late in the war the USA had these as well



What effective accoustic torpedoes did the US subs have Glider, I'm curious!



> anti radar coatings - that didn't work


The anti radar coatings did work however Glider



> schnorkel - certainly but not on all



Do you have any idea of how many ?



> Zeiss optics - certainly but outranged and outclassed by the US radar



Explain to me how the US used radar while submerged. 

For surface attacks the German U-boat had the Ballspiel gunnery radar.



> Advanced sonar - but matched by US Sonar



How ?



> What the Germans lacked were
> Air Search radar



FuMO 61 65. 

Plus Naxos radar warning.



> Surface search radar



FuMO 83 84



> Sonar that was designed to penetrate minefields



Designed to ? The Germans were using very accurate sonar equipment Glider, more than accurate enough to detect mine fields.



> Torpedo tubes - 6 in the Type IX, 5 in the Type VII, 10 in the US Fleet class



Completely irrelevant.



> Torpedo's - 14 in the type VII, 22 in the Type IX, 24 in the Fleet Class
> Secure line of sight communications by night.



Ever considered comparing the size of the boats ???


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 31, 2007)

Gato: 
Range: Surfaced:12,000nm at 10knots 
Submerged:95nm at 5knots 

Type IX: 
Range: surfaced 11.079 nm at 10 knots 
submerged 99 nm at 4 knots 

I take it that submerged range is on batteries before recharging them?


----------



## Soren (Dec 31, 2007)

Yup.


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> What effective accoustic torpedoes did the US subs have Glider, I'm curious!


The US developed an electric anti-escort torpedo. Torpedo Mk 27 Mod 0, or "Cutie," was the adaptation of Mine Mk 24 for submarine use, and saw service starting late 1944/early 1945 in the Pacific theater



> The anti radar coatings did work however Glider


I don't believe that they did. The previous posting supports that position plus the losses the U Boats had to suffer to air attack



> _Re number of U Boats that didn't have a Schnorkel _Do you have any idea of how many ?


I admit that I don't. In his book Iron Coffins Herbert Werner describes how he was desperately searching for the parts to complete the Schnorkel equipment for the submarine he has been assigned to command. 
He also mentions a total of 120 'old type' boats being prepared for combat on which he doesn't elaborate apart from saying that 80 are large boats and 40 small boats. My guess is that these are training boats that were unlikely to be so equipped.



> Explain to me how the US used radar while submerged.


Easy, they couldn't but then neither could anyone else.



> For surface attacks the German U-boat had the Ballspiel gunnery radar.


Of very little if any use at all. Gunnery from a small rolling pitching U Boat was difficult at point blank range. The fact that you know the range is of little assistance if you are trying to hit a ship at 8km the maximum effective range is of little help



> FuMO 61 65.


FuMo 61 was in widespread use at the end of the war, but questions remain about its effectiveness. With a range of 20KM against aircraft it would in theory have made the U Boat almost imune against aircraft attack, but as we all know this wasn't the case. Many U Boats were sunk in surprise attacks using the Leigh Light which is a very short range weapon.




> Plus Naxos radar warning.


Naxos was effective against the 10cm ASW radar, but at the same time as the Naxos was intorduced into service, the Allies introduced the 3cm radar against the which the Naxos was useless. So I am afraid it was soon obsolete, there were also problems with the antenna.




> FuMO 83 84


I have found the comment on U Boat net but can find no mention of this radar as being in production or service on any other web page or book that I have read or am in position of. I don't know if this ever entered service, have you any information that could help with this?




> _Re Sonars and minefields _Designed to ? The Germans were using very accurate sonar equipment Glider, more than accurate enough to detect mine fields.


There is a difference in being able to detect minefields, and penetrate minefields. The Japanese relied on minfields in a number of key areas and the US were able to use their sonar to get through the minefields submerged.



> _Re number of torpedo tubes per boat _Completely irrelevant.


I must disagree. I have read a number of books on the U boat war and there were a number of times when A U boat was in a very good position within a convoy and had to break off the attack to reload the torpedo tubes. 
With more tubes more vessels would have been sunk.




> Ever considered comparing the size of the boats ???


Nope, the object was to find the best. If you want to include size then the British U/V class would be in with a shout but I wouldn't by any means call them the best.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren, you claim to have no bias so what were the positive/good points of the American boats and the negative/bad points of the German boats.



> Re Sonars and minefields Designed to ? The Germans were using very accurate sonar equipment Glider, more than accurate enough to detect mine fields.


Didn't work to well for the boats that tried to penetrate the waters in the Bristol Channel. Three U-boats were recently found that were sunk by mines.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

I seem to have mad an error in my previous message. US Fleet boats could apparently use their radars while submerged.
In one of my books on the Submarine war there is a section on how they received the news that the war was over. One of the US boats clearly stated that they were submerged with the air search radar operating when they receieved the news.
I admit to not knowing how this was done, but its probable that the radio mast had the radar antenna on it and the two were raised together.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Glider,

Nearly all the equipment I listed were standard for German U-boats. (Anto radar coating for the schnorchel was not)

If you found some comments on U-boat net then look at the bottom of the page to see the sources, cause U-boat.net always backs up its information with a list of respectable sources.

And about the Allied acoustic torpedo, again it was NOT effective and it was incredibly small unlikely to cause any serious damage to what'ever it hit. The German accoustic homing torpedoes on the other hand were the same fullsize torpedoes with a 280 kg warhead as their std. torpedoes and their homing system was a whole lot better. 

And about the anti radar coatings, well they were infact highly effective, reducing radar signature by 90%. However not many U-boats were equipped with this. 

Furthermore German subs also used anti sonar coatings, making them harder to spot with sonar. This worked very well, reducing the signature by about 15%, not much, however the noise of the boat was reduced as-well increasing the stealth capability of the boat.



AL Schlageter said:


> Soren, you claim to have no bias so what were the positive/good points of the American boats and the negative/bad points of the German boats.



And you claim not to be biased 

You want me to make a generalized statement, well sorry but its not that simple since there were different types of U-boats around.



> Didn't work to well for the boats that tried to penetrate the waters in the Bristol Channel. Three U-boats were recently found that were sunk by mines.



Two ?! Wow! I bet the US lost no U-boats to minefields.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> Nearly all the equipment I listed were standard for German U-boats. (Anto radar coating for the schnorchel was not)
> 
> If you found some comments on U-boat net then look at the bottom of the page to see the sources, cause U-boat.net always backs up its information with a list of respectable sources.


I have nothing but respect for Uboat.net an excellent site. However I also use other sources



> And about the Allied acoustic torpedo, again it was NOT effective and it was incredibly small unlikely to cause any serious damage to what'ever it hit. The German accoustic homing torpedoes on the other hand were the same fullsize torpedoes with a 280 kg warhead as their std. torpedoes and their homing system was a whole lot better.


The allied acoustic torpedo was effective. It was designed to strike against escorts and any escort hit would be out of the battle which was the idea. I didn't mention the Mk28 torpedo which was a full sized version that just made the war due to the very low numbers used.
The Mk 27 was a very stealthy torpedo that self launched not needing compressed air which meant that the target had no clues to know that it was coming. A very valuble attribute when taking on escorts.



> And about the anti radar coatings, well they were infact highly effective, reducing radar signature by 90%. However not many U-boats were equipped with this.


We willl have to agree to disagree on this



> Furthermore German subs also used anti sonar coatings, making them harder to spot with sonar. This worked very well, reducing the signature by about 15%, not much, however the noise of the boat was reduced as-well increasing the stealth capability of the boat.


This was new to me and interesting


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> And you claim not to be biased
> 
> You want me to make a generalized statement, well sorry but its not that simple since there were different types of U-boats around.


You were the one making the claim German sonar was so accurate. I should mention those boats were lost *very late* in the war.

Unlike some, I can see both the good and bad points of a design.

Pick each model of U-boat and give us its negative/bad points. Not that hard to do for one that claims he has no bias unless you are claiming the U-boats were completely faultless and American boats were pigs.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

T4 Electric
7500m/20kts

Falke, the first homing torpedo, was fitted with a passive acoustic homing device. It was introduced in March, 1943 and used by U-603 (Oblt. Bertelsmann), U-758 (Kptlt. Manseck) and U-221 (Kptlt. Trojer) against convoys HX-229 and SC-122. Few were used as it was replace by the T5 which was faster, had a greater range and could be used with either magnetic or contact detonators.

7s	T5 Electric
5700m/24kts

The Zaunköning (Wren) came into service during the autumn of 1943. Intended to be an escort-killer, it achieved some early minor success only to be countered by the allied Foxer noise-making decoy. It was scoring hits against escort and merchants to the end of the war though.

The weapon was designed to lock onto the loudest noise after a run of 400m from its launch. This often proved to be the U-boat itself and standard issue-orders were to dive immediately to depth of 60m after launch froma bow tube while a stern shot was to be followed by a complete silence in the boat. Two U-boats were almost certainly lost when hit by one of their own T5 torpedoes, U-972 in Dec 1943 and U-377 in Jan 1944.

T11 Electric
5700m/24kts

A modified T5, less affected by Foxer. Never used in battle conditions although late test results were promising.

uboat.net - Technical pages

MG 42 G (gU)
FuMO 30

This was an improved version of the rotating mast version of FMG 41G (gU), with a direction finder added, ready in late 1942. It was built into all U-boats. However, it was easily disabled by depth charges or bombs, and the antennas corroded in the salt water. Commanders did not like to use it, because they feared that it gave away their position.

FuMO 61 Hohentwiel U
FuMO 65 Hohentwiel U1

Hohentwiel was developed for installation in aircraft, to be used against surface ships. The first working radar in this series appeared in September 1942, and from August 1943 onwards the radar was installed in naval reconnaissance aircraft such as the Fw 200 and He 177. Hohentwiel radars operated on 550MHz (55cm), and later models were tunable between 525 and 575MHz.

In 1943 Lorentz was instructed to adapt Hohentwiel for naval use, and soon Hohentwiel appeared on U-boats, small surface ships, and coastal installations. These Hohentwiel radars contained only 19 valves and, by the standards of the time, were easy to maintain and reliable. The U-Boat FuMO 61 version had a 1 by 1.4 meter rotating antenna (again an array of dipoles) on a mast. Size of the antenna and height of the mast were restricted by installation on an U-boot, and range was 10km against ships and 20km against aircraft; installations on surface ships had double that range. Resolution was about 3 degrees, and at short range its range accuracy was 100 meters. FuMO 65 replaced the traditional radar display, which had separate oscilloscope screens indicating range and azimuth, by a PPI (Plan Position Indicator) screen, known to the Germans as 'Drauf'. This is kind of radar display most familiar to us today, a circular display on which the position of a target is directly indicated as the radar beam sweeps round. FuMO 65 was installed in only a few Type XXI submarines. It was considered a very useful piece of equipment, especially for navigation in coastal waters.

FuMO 83 Berlin U I
FuMO 84 Berlin U II

The Berlin series of centimetric (9cm) radars, built by Telefunken, was based on the British development of the cavity magnetron, as found in a British bomber shot down near Rotterdam on 3 February 1943. This was a painful surprise for the Germans. Not only were they far behind in the development of centimetric radar, they had just abandoned it, in the belief that it would not be effective. Tests of the captured radar, code named Rotterdam, revealed its performance, and it was quickly copied under the name 'Berlin'. As was typical, the German copy was better engineered than its British equivalent, and thus considerably lighter and smaller.

FuMO 83 had four ceramic stub antennas (whatever those are?) in a plastic sphere, which was again installed on top of a rotating mast. It could be used for panoramic scanning or for direction finding. The system was tested on an U-Boot (alas it is not said which one!), and gave a view as "from a balloon 200 metres above the boat", according to its skipper.

FuMO 84 was the final version, which did not use a retractable mast. The system never went into production.

Ballspiel

Ballspiel was a gunnery radar for U-boats. Like most German radars at the end of the war, it was a development of Berlin. It had a range of 25km, but for practical gunnery only 8km was used. It had an azimuth accuracy of about 1 degree and a range accuracy of 500 meters. It is known that Ballspiel was used in active service, but there are no data about its effectiveness.

uboat.net - Technical pages


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

So AL, are you claiming that no US boats were lost to minefields ??

German sonar was very accurate, thats just fact, but any WWII boat could run unsuspectedly into a minefield. 

And about the U-boats, well the German U-boats have Optics, stealth, maneuverability firepower as their main advantages. The US boats generally have surface speed, surface range size going for them.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2008)

One of the characteristics of the subs in WW2 which was of great importance which I don't believe anyone has mentioned is habitability. Crew performance was directly linked to this feature. I believe that the US Fleet Boats were outstanding in this area for the WW2 era.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren and Schlageter dont turn this thread into another one of your personal flame wars. 

If you do so, we moderators will close another thread and you all will have ruined it for other users of the site.

Do both of you understand?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

Was just going to ask that, about crews living standards etc...


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Adler,

Just remember who started throwing the mud.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> One of the characteristics of the subs in WW2 which was of great importance which I don't believe anyone has mentioned is habitability. Crew performance was directly linked to this feature. I believe that the US Fleet Boats were outstanding in this area for the WW2 era.



US boats were very good in this regard, no doubt. The German U-boats fitted with the schnorchel probably had the best habitability of all. The Type XXI featured the best habitability of all U-boats with a much more efficient air-conditioning system than previous types and excellent crew quarters.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren
I have been looking into the anti sonar coatings that you mentioned and your information seems to be incomplete.

The one you seem to be talking about is called Alberich

This consisted of synthetic rubber sheets of about 4mm in thickness the noise reduction of 15% was claimed but no conclusive tests were undertaken.
It also acted as a sound dampener, containing the U-boat’s own engine noise. 
But the sheets partially washed off and the sheets flapped in the water causing a huge amount of noise and drag which also reduced the underwater speed of the boat. 

A Type II coastal boat for trials on its sound absorbing properties and one Type IXc was treated. The problems with the adhesive stopped any further treatments until late 1944 when it was tested again. Things had improved but only one type XXIII was treated by the wars end.

So to sum up your last posting

_And about the U-boats, well the German U-boats have Optics, stealth, maneuverability firepower as their main advantages. The US boats generally have surface speed, surface range size going for them._

German First
Optics - Yes, surpassed by allied radar
Stealth - No
Maneuverability - Where did this one come from? but probably yes for the Type VII and no for the Type IX
Fire power - No, not with less tubes and torpedo's plus smaller guns

Then the US
Surface Speed - Yes
Surface range - No, the larger type IX's had a better range than the US Fleet Boats
Size - Yes in most cases
Habitability - The USA had a clear lead here over all nations. Air conditioning in the boats as standard, refrigerated food, Petty officers were in two bunk area's as were officers, the list goes on.

What I have found interesting is that you have never picked up on some serious advantages that the Germans did have, but because I am feeling wicked, I will let you find those out.

Two things we will agree on though, is that in the first half of the war, the German Boats were much better than any other nations boats including the US.
Plus Type XXI's were way ahead at the end of the war.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

The German boats featured more silent electric engines, the schnorchel, and Alberich. So when the Alberich wasn't shredded the German U-boats were definitely more stealthy.

As to firepower, well German torpedoes were allot more reliable and weren't prone to failure as the US torpedoes were. Many US torpedoes turned out to be duds. German torps were also non-tracable, the US were not.

As for habitability the Type XXI beats them all with excellent air-conditioning, crew quarters, food storage etc etc... 

The German subs also featured refrigerators, so this wasn't a unique feature with US subs.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

Had the XXI seen combat in '43 when they started to build them, the war in the Atlantic could have changed slightly. Also, didn't the XXI featured an advanced sonar system which allowed the crew to aim torpedoes without relying on the periscope, increasing stealth? Or am I remembering completely wrong?


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren, the accounts I have read of the boats traveling with the snorkel was that it was horrible for the crews with the air pressure changing constantly so I don't think those boats were notable for there habitability.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Please give reference of this Renrich because hearing about this is definitely a first for me. Change in pressure how ? 

According to all the accounts I've read the Schnorchel made things a whole lot better for the crew, constantly supplying fresh air throughtout the boat, removing any bad odor build ups.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> The German boats featured more silent electric engines, the schnorchel, and Alberich. So when the Alberich wasn't shredded the German U-boats were definitely more stealthy.


I don't think I made myself clear ALBERICH WAS ONLY FITTED TO ONE (1) U-BOAT AND THAT WAS A TYPE XXIII.

Can I ask where you get the information that German electric engines were quieter that anyone else's because it isn't as far as I am aware either, true or logical.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Please give reference of this Renrich because hearing about this is definitely a first for me. Change in pressure how ?
> 
> According to all the accounts I've read the Schnorchel made things a whole lot better for the crew, constantly supplying fresh air throughtout the boat, removing any bad odor build ups.



This was a very common problem with U Boats using the Schnorchel. If the seas were high or the boat trimmed too low, water would get in the Schnorchel intake, baffles would block the air to stop water getting into the engines and the engines would literally suck the air out of the inside of the boat.

Eardrums could burst in bad cases, engine fumes could be sent into the boat instead of outside, very very nasty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> Just remember who started throwing the mud.



What are we in Kindergarden now? "He started it!".....

I dont give a **** who started it. We are sick and tired of threads turning into flame fests because people want to act like children!


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

LoL Adler! No we are not, but starting by saying someone biased in your first post is to provoke for no reason. This isn't about "He started it!" its about purposely wanting to start an argument for no reason at all.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Glider said:


> This was a very common problem with U Boats using the Schnorchel. If the seas were high or the boat trimmed too low, water would get in the Schnorchel intake, baffles would block the air to stop water getting into the engines and the engines would literally suck the air out of the inside of the boat.
> 
> Eardrums could burst in bad cases, engine fumes could be sent into the boat instead of outside, very very nasty.



Source for this ?

And I've never ever heard of crew having their earsdrums burst, please provide reference for this.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Glider said:


> I don't think I made myself clear ALBERICH WAS ONLY FITTED TO ONE (1) U-BOAT AND THAT WAS A TYPE XXIII.



You couldn't be more wrong Glider. Ever heard of the Schwarzer Panther ?



> Can I ask where you get the information that German electric engines were quieter that anyone else's because it isn't as far as I am aware either, true or logical.



German subs had special small electric engines for silent running only, these were allot quieter than normal electric engines.

The Type XXI featured two of these, the type SSW GV232/28.


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren
I have read a number of books on this subject and own more than a few. It is a subject I know something about and your not hearing of the problems of water getting into the air intakes of the Schnorchel tells me more than anything, that you don't have any background or listen to a logical explanation as to how it happens.
Also you haven't mentioned the main advantage that the Germans had over all other navies, namely that they could dive a lot deeper than any other navy. Almost twice the depth of most submarines. 
If you had anything like the knowledge your postings imply, it would have been the first thing that you would have raised.

I strongly reccomend that you read Iron Coffins written by Herbert A Werner ISBN no 0-304-35330-2. He served in U-Boats from 1941 to the end of the war. All the points I have raised are covered in one way or another and its an insight into the battle, the people and how they lived and died.

Re Electric engines for silent running All submarines had engines for silent running. 

Alberich was only fitted to one U-Boat that is a fact plain and simple.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren, My books are mainly packed but I believe that Glider answered as to reference about changes of pressure in the boat. I have read"Iron Coffins" and probably have it in my packed library. If you think about it the snorkel was mainly a device that allowed the boat to travel submerged using the diesel engines with only the intake for outside air with an automatic valve which would close if water came into the intake exposed above the surface. In any kind of a sea the valve would have to close often and then the diesels would suck air from inside the boat and, I think, expel exhaust fumes into the boat. Everything I have read about the U-boats, snorkel or not, indicated the conditions were pretty grim. In the Atlantic, cold, wet, dirty, bad food after a few weeks, crowded and of course the dangers of war. When you think about it, quite a testimony to the German submariners that they hung in there and did as well as they did. Comparatively our guys in the fleet boats were in the lap of luxury. Supposedly they had the best food in the USN although I doubt that we would consider their lot as cushy by today's standards.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> German subs had special small electric engines for silent running only, these were allot quieter than normal electric engines.
> 
> The Type XXI featured two of these, the type SSW GV232/28.


I can't find these SSW GV232/28 motors mounted in the Type VII.



> As to firepower, well German torpedoes were allot more reliable and weren't prone to failure as the US torpedoes were.


I think you need to read this article Soren.

The Norwegian Operation and the Torpedo Crisis

_One of the less popular stories about the elite German U-Bootwaffe is the torpedo crisis of late 1939 -- early 1940. Although this was the period during which some of the most outstanding U-boat successes were scored, it was full of bitter disappointments and equally resounding misses as well._

uboat.net - Articles

Schnorchel Problems

_There were several problems with the Schnorchels; first it turned the attacking/patrolling U-boat into a slow (6 knots was the max speed for the VII and IX types, otherwise the air mast would break off) and almost deaf weapon. Second were the various disposal problems associated with the permanently submerged boat, garbage had to be stored internally and further fouled up the boat. Third was the problem with the initial schnorchel masts that they tended to close up and thus the diesels, being starved of air from above, sucked all available air from the boat itself and causing extremely harmful ear pains and sometimes even damaged ear drums._

uboat.net - Technical pages

Is uboat.net a reliable source Soren?

Now the Type XXI was the most advanced sub in the world at the time but with only 10 boats operational at wars end. Best to leave the Type XXI out of the discussion and discuss only the Type VIIs and IXs.


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Glider,

Make stuff up about me if you like, I really don't care cause anyone can go see that I have have made it clear many times that the German subs could dive allot deeper, read many of the other posts I have made on German subs and you'll see. I remember discussing the Gato classes low maximum depth vs the 300+ m maximum depth of some German subs. Besides I remember Syscom3 claiming it to be no advantage at all. 

Are we clear Glider ??

About the Scnorchel, no I have never heard of ear drums being burst, I have to the contrary read that life was made allot more pleasant aboard the boats. Ofcourse the engine sucking in water and creating a vacuum inside the boat makes sense, which could be painful (Heck some people even find flying painful for their ears), but actually bursting eardrums, no. And besides this was a problem only suffered early on, later Schnorchels had this problem virtually eliminated.

Renrich, 

You have a completely wrong picture about the inviroment in which the KM U-boat crews lived. Please read the following:
uboat.net - The Men - Foodstuffs


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

AL,

Yes, Uboat.net is a very reliable source! Still no'one have come forth with evidence of the Schnorchel ever having burst anyones eardrums. 

Also why discuss the early German torps of 39 - 40 ???


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Also why discuss the early German torps of 39 - 40 ???


Why discuss early war American torpedoes?

Early war, is early war whether it is 39/40 for the Germans or 42/43 for the Americans.

Did you actually read the article?

_In December 1942, well into the war, a new, improved magnetic pistol was introduced which also functioned on contact. It proved very efficient. Until then, writes Dönitz, "the effectiveness of our torpedoes was no greater than it had been during the First World War"_


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Please give reference of this Renrich because hearing about this is definitely a first for me. Change in pressure how ?
> 
> According to all the accounts I've read the Schnorchel made things a whole lot better for the crew, constantly supplying fresh air throughtout the boat, removing any bad odor build ups.



Soren
Remember this posting? All the evidence and I do mean ALL the envidence including U-Boat net, points to the problems with sucking air from the inside of the boat.
You mention all the accounts you have read made things a lot better for the crew. Can we ask you to name ANY of them?

Diving ability of the U Boat. You say you have mentioned it many times, can I ask where you have mentioned it at ANY time in this thread.

There is still one other area where the Germans had a clear advantage which hasn't been mentioned in this thread, I am waiting to see if you know it.

I suggest you spend some time and read up on the topic and you might find the item I am waiting for you to raise


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Glider,

If you want to play the game of "You don't knwo what you're talking about" ?fine by me, we can do that;

Glider, how come you weren't aware of German subs having air-search radar despite this being some of the very basic things to know if you ever had any serious interest on the subject ??

Glider, how come you didn't knwo that German U-boats had surface search radar ? The FuMO 83 being in widespread use.

Glider, how come you weren't aware of German subs having gunnery radar ? Also pretty basic.

Glider, how come you had never before heard of Alberich anti sonar coatings and somehow emiditiately after realizing this came to the conclusion that only ONE U-boat ever featured this ? - Despite that in reality several actual featured this coating, incl. the very famous Schwarzer Panther, a Type VIIC boat.

Shall we go on ???

And no before yesterday I hadn't heard about the pressure problems caused by the early Schnorchels, I had heard of engines cutting out because of water clotting up the schnorchel in high seas, thats it. Maybe thats because the books I've read on the subject mostly were about the crews perspective and about how much better the living aboard the boat had become. 

And as to why I didn't mention the higher maximum depth of the German boat in this thread, well honestly I didn't even think of it, maybe because its a very well known advantage or because of the countles other times I've brought it up.

As to any other advantage of German U-boats than the ones I've already mentioned, which in your opinion is a very easy one to find, well I've already mentioned:

Non-tracable torpedoes. A very big advantage. (One you again seemed to not know about)

Zeiss optics. Pretty big advantage as-well for accurate range estimation while submerged when sonar radar is hazzardous to use.

Accoustic homing torpedoes. A big advantage as-well as it made figting escorts a whole lot easier.

Schnorchel. Very big advantage again, allowing the boat to stay submerged while travelling long distances, supplying fresh air throughout the boat, and making it harder to spot for aircraft.

You brought up the deeper maximum depth, which is true, but besides these I can't really think of any other real advantages, and this might very well be because I don't know enough about US boats to know what they lacked compared to German U-boats other than what I mentioned above. Sonar decoys perhaps ?


----------



## AVRoe (Jan 2, 2008)

Do torpedoes play a large part in Submarine Warfair ? If they do then the japs had the advantage. * Japan *
Ship Class Used On Submarines 
Date Of Design 1943 
Date In Service 1944 
Weight 3,814 lbs. (1,730 kg) 
Overall Length 354 in (9.000 m) 
Explosive Charge 1,213 lbs. (550 kg) Type 97 
Range / Speed 6,000 yards (5,500 m) / 49-51 knots 
8,200 yards (7,500 m) / 45-47 knots 
Power Kerosene-oxygen wet-heater 
Notes: A slightly improved version, trading a shorter range for a much larger explosive charge. As per the Type 93, later versions had a more pointed head, giving a similar two knot increase in speed, as shown in the table above. 
*Germany* Homing Torpedoes 53.3 cm (21") G7e T4, T5, T10 and T11
Ship Class Used On Submarines 
Date Of Design about 1940 
Date In Service 1943 
Weight T4: 3,080 lbs. (1,937 kg) 
T5, T5a and T5b: N/A 
T10: 3,571 lbs. (1,620 kg) 
T11: N/A 
Overall Length 23 ft. 7 in. (7.186 m) 
Explosive Charge 440 lbs. (200 kg) Hexanite 
Range / Speed T4: 8,200 yards (7,500 m) / 20 knots 
T5: 6,230 yards (5,700 m) / 24-25 knots 
T5a and T5b: 8,750 yards (8,000 m) / 22 knots 
T10: 5,470 yards (5,000 m) / 30 knots 
T11: 6,230 yards (5,700 m) / 24-25 knots 
Power Lead-acid batteries 
*America *Submarines 
Date Of Design 1941 
Date In Service 1943 
Weight 720 lbs. (327 kg) 
Overall Length 7 ft 6 in (2.286 m) 
Explosive Charge 95 lbs. (43 kg) Torpex 
Range / Speed 5,000 yards (4,570 m) / 12 knots 
Power Battery 
Notes: A variation of the airborne Mark 24 adapted for submarine use. It was a passive homer intended for self-defense against ASW escorts. Used only against the Japanese. A larger version, the Mark 27 Mod 4, was capable of 15.9 knots and was in service from 1946 to 1960. 

America 21" (53.3 cm) Mark 18
Ship Class Used On Submarines 
Date Of Design 1943 
Date In Service 1944 
Weight 3,154 lbs. (1,431 kg) 
Overall Length 20 ft 5 in (6.223 m) 
Explosive Charge 575 lbs. (261 kg) Torpex 
Range / Speed 4,000 yards (3,650 m) / 29 knots 
Power Electric-Battery 
Notes: The Westinghouse version of the captured German G7e. Had the advantage of being trackless and only requiring about 70% of the labor needed to build a wet-heater torpedo, but its poor performance and design flaws led to it being discarded in 1950 in favor of the Mark 14 and Mark 16. Until new guide studs were placed in the tubes, the Mark 18 was susceptible to damage upon launch because it accelerated much faster than did the conventional steam-powered torpedoes. By the end of the war, the Mark 18 made up 65 percent of all torpeodes fired by submarines.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Explosive charge in all German torpedoes was 280 kg of Hexanite, the T5 ZaunKönigs contained 6 kg less at 274 kg. All of the G7e type torpedoes were trackless, T2, T3, T4, T5, T5b T11.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

Should I assume that British submarines and torpedoes were poor pieces of equipment?


----------



## AVRoe (Jan 2, 2008)

*Sorry* British torpedoes 21" (53.3 cm) Mark VIII and VIII**
Ship Class Used On All Submarines from the "O" Class on and MTBs 
Date Of Design About 1925 
Date In Service 1927 
Weight 3,452 lbs. (1,566 kg) 
Overall Length 21 ft 7 in (6.579 m) 
Negative Buoyancy 804 lbs. (365 kg) 
Explosive Charge Mark VIII 
750 lbs. (340 kg) TNT 
Mark VIII** 
Originally: 722 lbs. (327 kg) TNT 
Later: 805 lbs. (365 kg) Torpex

Range / Speed Mark VIII 
5,000 yards (4,570 m) / 40 knots 
Mark VIII** 
5,000 yards (4,570 m) / 45.5 knots 
7,000 yards (6,400 m) / 41 knots

Power Burner-cycle, 322 hp @ 45 knots 
Notes: The Mark VIII was the first burner-cycle torpedo in service. The principal World War II version was the Mark VIII** and this torpedo was used far more than any other British torpedo during the war. 3,732 were fired by September 1944, 56.4% of the total. This torpedo was still in use in British ships as late as 1983 and is probably still used today in other navies.


----------



## AVRoe (Jan 2, 2008)

Do torpedoes make the Submarines better ?


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

They add to their firepower, so yes.

PS: Plan_D is right, we completely forgot about the British subs!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm right on submarines ... freakin' hell, I don't have a clue 'bout World War II submarines. I know that the British had some success in the Med with submarines.


----------



## AVRoe (Jan 2, 2008)

To me it´s the sub thats important,speed,dive depth ect. So i think the German U-boats win hands down.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 2, 2008)

True chaps....what about the British, Italian and Japanese? I don't know if the Russians or French had much to write home about...


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I'm right on submarines ... freakin' hell, I don't have a clue 'bout World War II submarines. I know that the British had some success in the Med with submarines.



You were very right to remind us that British subs have been avoided completely in this topic, which isn't really fair cause the British were no slouches at building subs.


----------



## AVRoe (Jan 2, 2008)

Try this site *British Submarines of World War Two - A History for british subs


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> If you want to play the game of "You don't knwo what you're talking about" ?fine by me, we can do that;
> 
> Glider, how come you weren't aware of German subs having air-search radar despite this being some of the very basic things to know if you ever had any serious interest on the subject ??


It because the Germans didn't have any active air search radar until the war was almost over late 1944 on and as mentioned there must be question marks over there effectiveness due to the losses caused by air attack. 
They did have passive warning systems dont mix the two up, but these were normally obsolete almost as soon as they started to be deployed.



> Glider, how come you didn't knwo that German U-boats had surface search radar ? The FuMO 83 being in widespread use.


As far as I can tell the FuMO 83 wasn't issued at all. I did ask for your source but no reply was given. U Boat.net certainly doesn't say it was deployed and even had a question mark over the antenna. It doesn't appear in any list of radars that I can find and I have tried to look at its development. An FuMO81 was fitted on Heavy Cruisers and the Antenna was similar to that described in U Boat Net but I have yet to find any examples or photos of the 83 being fitted to a submarine.



> Glider, how come you weren't aware of German subs having gunnery radar ? Also pretty basic.


This was new to me and a surprise as any sub on a pitching rolling boat trying to outgun anything at 8km is a joke. Even U Boat net mentioned that there was no record of its success. 



> Glider, how come you had never before heard of Alberich anti sonar coatings and somehow emiditiately after realizing this came to the conclusion that only ONE U-boat ever featured this ? - Despite that in reality several actual featured this coating, incl. the very famous Schwarzer Panther, a Type VIIC boat.


This was new to me and I did what you would expect anyone to do and that was to look into it. I found a source and that said that only 1 boat had been equipped. I have continued to look into it and it now seems that a maximum of 10 (ten) boats were so equipped. Hardly the widespread service you would expect from such a success story (according to your postings) Literally hundreds of boats were built after the Schwarzer Panther, so can I ask why only another 8 or 9 were equipped if it was such a good idea? Or can you tell me what the correct number was, if 10 is incorrect?

Your new items to me were mainly because they either didn't enter service, entered service so late that the war was over, or were in such small numbers as to be negligable in their effect.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> Accoustic homing torpedo's - certainly but late in the war the USA had these as well
> anti radar coatings - that didn't work
> schnorkel - certainly but not on all
> Zeiss optics - certainly but outranged and outclassed by the US radar
> Advanced sonar - but matched by US Sonar



I am afraid these statemens are rather poorly supported.

Acoustic torpedoes - in this the Germans had a clear edge. They used it earlier, and to a far greater extent. The US acoustic torpedoes appeared simply too late, and their warhead was rather small. Staying with torpedoes, the US torpedoes had reliability problems to a far greater extent than any other nation - well all nation had some sort of problem with magnetic fuses but it was also quickly fixed - largely to, to put it simply, some higher ranking US subcom officers being burocratic arseholes and simply refusing that there IS a problem. The US lacked electric torpedoes as well, their version later in the war being a copycat version of German e-torpedoes etc.

The anti radar and anti-sonar coatings were there, and I`d like to see evidence to your claim that they didn`t work. This was a nice feature of German subs as opposed to US subs, as was schnorkel.

On the issue of sonar - no sorry it wasn`t 'matched' by US sonar. The German WW2 passive sonar sets were pretty much in class of their own, post-war the US copied these. And these passive sets could detect enemy shipping in far greater range than the Mk I eyeball or Not my opinion, it`s Friedman`s opinion.



> What the Germans lacked were
> Air Search radar
> Surface search radar



Both statements were demonstrated to be untrue - German subs had radars, and, in the practical installations that restricted the use of radars on submarines - low over-the-surface height, corrosion and danger of being detected sooner by something it couldn`t even detect yourself yet - the practicaldifferences were marginal. 

In addition the Germans produced effective passive sonar sets that were of actual USE for the submarine commanders to avoid sub hunter aircraft and ships.



> Sonar that was designed to penetrate minefields



I am all ears about that.



> Torpedo tubes - 6 in the Type IX, 5 in the Type VII, 10 in the US Fleet class
> Torpedo's - 14 in the type VII, 22 in the Type IX, 24 in the Fleet Class



The IXD carried 24 torps as well, and there were other, less shining examples of US subs during the war - the submarine war on the Pacific did not start with the Gato and in 1943. Neither I understand the tube number fetish - it appears the Germans figured four forward is the ideal for them, probably with good reason. Tubes you can`t use to the full just add dead weight, less space, increase the height of the superstructure, and there is considerable difficulty firing all six tubes because of centre of gravity issues - the firing sub at periscope depth can easily come to surface by the sudden loss of several tons of weight from the bow, and unwanted surfacing is THE LAST thing you want to have when firing a full spread - that would be typically against a well protected warship...

Now as a starter the US Fleet class subs, their design, their concept etc. were originating back to captured World War _One_ large Imperial German 'Cruiser' submarines. Fact. The Germans themselves abandoned these designs, fact, probably seeing these inpractical for their own needs. That`s a pretty good generic hint for you for a couple of things. 

First of all, different theatres, different needs, secondly, it`s a bit odd to claim the superiority of a boat class you copied from the other guy who had actual (and by far, the most of all WW1 combatants) expertise with submarines, who later discarded these big boats for it`s future designs.

The US boats were built for long ranges of the Pacific, and for odball, obsolate operational requirements - some dumbnut figured it would have been a great idea to build subs to accompany the fleet, hence 'Fleet' submarines. The requirement was impossible to meet, the subs simply could not produce the speed, nor the seakeeping qualities, and anyway, the whole thing didn`t make any sense, it just forced US sub commanders to practice in peacetime for a scenario they never used operationally in war, and figure out in wartime how to operate all alone. Their boats were large, and while roomy , they were unmanouverable, and slow to dive. They were perfectly fit for the Pacific, but I`d presume they would have been decimated on the Atlantic`s convoy battles and constant air patrols. Their AA suit was, compared to German subs, relatively weak. Later ones had air condtioning - hardly standard on *all* boats I am afraid - good for the crew and the electrics as well, a salient point of US subs. On a far more important notice IMHO, is that their diving depths could simply not compare with the U-boats. The latter could dive and survive 300 _meters_ depth, some even came back from 340 _meters_, the US subs matched this number, but not the scale - they were at best manage 3-400 _feet_. The large hulls were simply not so resistant to pressure, whereas the Germans usually took every opportunity to add a milimeter or two to their pressure hulls with every ton they saved elsewhere. Far more important it is IMHO to be able to dive to extreme depths to evade the escorts rather than to have 2 extra torpedo tubes, which will be largely redundant against merchant shipping (which let`s face it, was _the typical mission profile _of both USN and KM subs), and will only increase the height of the superstructure making the sub easier to spot while on surface - on which WW2 subs had to spend 90% of their time, if not more.

Overall both US Fleet subs and the KM`s U-boots were designed for a different enviroment and battle doctrine, overall however I feel the KM`s boats score better in some key areas a submarine is judged for - quality of torpedoes, sonar equipment, manouveribilty and maximum diving depths.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> It because the Germans didn't have any active air search radar until the war was almost over late 1944



I am afraid you`ll have to support this statement with something. 
Basically the 'air search' thing makes no sense. Radar picks up any signal, be it a ship or aircraft.

As for 'active air search radar' goes, what`s the fuss? The USN did put some air search radar at about the same time the Germans did on their boats, but generally speaking these submarine active radar sets on any side were poor pieces for practical use. They gave away your position, and their range was poor - it`s just inherent with submarines, they are not very high above the waterline, the surface of Earth isn`t flat you know, and radars are Line-of-Sight devices; they just can`t see behind the horizon.

Passive sets were, for all these reasons just quite simply better for submarines for self defense.



Glider said:


> on and as mentioned there must be question marks over there effectiveness due to the losses caused by air attack.



I guess the same reasoning is also appliciable to US submarine radar sets.



Glider said:


> They did have passive warning systems dont mix the two up, but these were normally obsolete almost as soon as they started to be deployed.



Bullocks.. primarly because Arthur Harris and Bomber Command had this nasty habit of allowing out very little, none if possible, advanced radar sets to Coastal command to fight the Uboats. Oddly enough, for Arthur Harris, finding German cities in the night was a higher priority than finding German uboats on the Atlantic. Bomber Command had priority for all new sets.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 2, 2008)

Looking at those that used submarines most, not knowing that much about this I admit, the Kriegmarine, USN, RN, IJN and the Regia Marina....how did the most commonly used submarines compare to each other manouverability, like crash diving, turning etc..?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 2, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> True chaps....what about the British, Italian and Japanese? I don't know if the Russians or French had much to write home about...



The British did relatively well on Med, and had some successes in the Norway campaign against light cruisers, but overall the record was not very impressive. During the inter-war years they produced a large array of confusing variants, some of them quite catastropic, and some were avarage. Relatively large number of boat types instead of a few solid, basic sub classes built with modest returns. _Typically_, they were small-medium sized, and not making very good use of the tons : relatively short legged, and for some odd reasons all very slow on the surface, and a heavy fixation on many forward batteries with few, if any reloads to them, no stern torpedo tube, even if it`s impractical like in the case of the numerous T-class which had _external_ forward tubes in an ugly forward superstructure. Unique in their layout, so unique that nobody else followed the same path, so one may say it was just unsound.

The Italians were a mixed affair. They did send large ocean going boats, comparable in size the the German IX to the Atlantic and had some noteworthy success with them with plenty of sinkings, IIRC some 1.5 million tons; the rest of the record was far more mixed, but they also had some success in the Med. The Italians OTOH absolutely shined when it came to small midget submarines and commandoes. Some very very impressive actions there, culminating in the sinking of two old WW1 BBs in Alexandria.

The Russian submarine record of WW2 was, quite simply, catastropic. The subs were just primitive, a fact aggrevated by the fact the crew was poorly trained, accidents took probably more casulties than the enemy ASW units.. The two most notable actions were firing a spread at the Tirpitz and miss it, and the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff loaded with some 8000 refugees fleeing from Eastern Prussia in 1945; most of them died. Neither gives partical reason to be proud of. After the war, they did great use of captured German submarine material though. 

There`s not much to say about the French, they didn`t have much opportunity to prove themselves; they came up with one of the most ridiculus technological dead-ends, 'Cruiser subs' of the Surceuf (sp?) class - someone must have had brain fever when he thought of creating _a submarine_ with _major caliber naval guns_ on it...

Of the Japanese I know of very little, they preferred very big subs (Pacific theatre!), with impressive torpedo batteries, at least on paper. Their sub doctrine called for submarines to be used primarly against warships, in which area they had numerous successes, and of course they had the most destructive torpedo of the unguided type, plus the crazy idea of huge suicide torpedoes that didn`t really work out like Kamikazes. Overall, in one word : over-compensation, Yamato-mindset with subs, too. Still, some of them are very impressive.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Good posts Kurfurst.

The primary German air-search radars was the FuMO 61 Hohentwiel U 
FuMO 65 Hohentwiel U1, both were effective when the situation allowed them usable.

The FuMO 83 was in use by 1944 and onwards. The FuMO 84 never saw active service.

However as Kurfurst points out, neither the German nor the Allied U-boat air search radar sets were worth much, the German naxos radar warning set was far more useful effective.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 2, 2008)

Cheers Kurfürst!


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2008)

Kurfurst, Soren
The only question that I don't think that I covered was the sonar that was designed to penetrate minefields.

It was the FM Sonar often nicknamed 'Hells Bells' by the crew.
On the PPI display each mine had a plot and using this gaps or weak spots could be identified and the Sub would penetrate the minefield. There was a second warning built into the Sonar. If the Sub got too close to a mine a warning ringing sound was sounded in the operators headphones, hence the nickname. Hope that helps.

Soren
Still waiting for anything that supports the statement that the 83 was in use in 1944 or 45 for that matter. Happy to conceed the point but as I have said I have been unable to find it anywhere. Also its a big assumption that because one country had problems others also did.

Kurfurst
You are correct about Harris stopping nearly all radar equipment being transferred to ASW use, but you forgot about US production.

PS Its spelt Bollocks in the UK. If you want to join a thread with an insult please get it right


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't know where you get your info on British subs Kurfurst but some at least had rear firing torpedo capability.

*British Submarines of World War Two - A History

German Type VIIC

2 forward tubes - U-72, 78, 80, 554, 555

no stern tubes - U-203, 331, 351, 401, 431, 651

The Type VIIB carried 14 torpedoes. That is 1 or 2 less** than the British S class and 2 or 3 more** than the Type VIIB for the T class. U-83 had no stern tube.

** depends on the build group

The first Type VIIs only carried 11 torpedoes.

Surface speed of the T boats was ~2kt slower than the Type VIIs. The T boats were slightly faster submerged.


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2008)

Kurfurst's post on the other navies was very good but I can add a few other bits if I may.

Italian Submarines
As mentioned before they sent a number of boats to the Atlantic with some success. Its also worth mentioning that they had to get past Gibralter and did so few if any losses, no mean achievement.
Compared to the German boats they had some plus's and minus's. The main problem was that they didn't handle as well and took a lot longer to dive which was a major risk when facing air attack. They also had a large superstructure and lacked stability in heavy seas.
On the plus side the Italians reconised before the war that merchant ships would be the main target and these were escorted by small naval ships. They designed a unique class called the Cagi class designed for long range missions against convoys. Against these 21in torpedos were a bit of an overkill so these submarines were equipped with 18in torpedo's. The logic being that they were large enough for the target and you could carry more torpedo's. As a result they had a good range of 13,500nm, could stay at sea for 4 months and carried 14 torpedo tubes with 36 torpedo's.
An interesting concept.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 3, 2008)

_36_ torps?!   

Definietely got to read up on that class... thanks!


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2008)

Submarines are not certainly anything i´d claim to have any insight into...but i recall discussions for sure:

(i) The best torpedoes of the war were made by the Japanese.

(ii) US submarines proved very succesful in gutting the Japanese merchant marine including several devastating blows against major Japanese warships (Fleet Carriers "Taiho" and "Shokaku" during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea); however, their overall potential as submarines was not put to severe test -luckily for them- because the Japanese did not develop efficient ASW methods or doctrine, as the British did in the Atlantic. On the other hand, such lack of efficient ASW methods from the part of the IJN had as direct consequence the terrible loss of shipping at the hands of US submarines.

To make the long story short, it was suggested that had the IJN developed ASW methods in a fashion similar to the observed in the Royal Navy, the "Silent Service" would not have fared better than the German U-boat fleet.

(iii) Japanese submarines were very advanced designs; their potential was wasted mainly due to Japanese doctrine of accompanying IJN Fleet operations, not paying enough attention to the enemy´s merchant marine.

To what degree could these statements be correct?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> _36_ torps?!
> 
> Definietely got to read up on that class... thanks!



WWW.SOMMERGIBILI.COM - Sommergibili Italiani ~ Italian Submarines

weaponry: 14 torpedo tubes 450 mm (8 ahead – 6 astern) - 38 torpedoes (22 ahead – 16 astern) - 2 guns 100 mm/47 - 2 antiaircraft machineguns 13.2 mm


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2008)

Taking them one at a time
(i) The Japanese torpedos were very good but the Long Lance wasn't used on Submarines, pure Oxygen in a Submarine is far too risky. That said their 21in torpedos were still very good.
(ii) A fair summary, would the US boats fare better than the German boats, no one will really know.
(iii) Some Japanese Submarines were very advanced, some were way off. They had a high speed boat similar in concept to a Type XXIII boat, undergoing trials as early as 1940. However this wasn't carried into production and all Japanese boats lacked the technical advantages of the German Boats. It should be admitted at this point that they were ahead of the British boats in a number of area's. 
What they lacked was leadership and strategic planning.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

Wasn't the Type 95, Based on the Long Lance type 93 torpedo? I don't remember the exact numbers, but:

Range: 9,900 yards (9,000m) at 49-50 knots,
Range: 13,200 yards (12,000m) at 45 knots. 

That's about three times the range of the American Mark 14 at the same speed, right?

With a top speed like that Type 95 must have been the fastest torpedo in common use by any navy during WWII. Wasn't also the torpedo's warhead largest of any submarine torpedo, only being second to the Type 93 Long Lance?

I'm sure that I'm wrong, only writing from a very diffused memory...

*Takes cover behind the couch*


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2008)

The type 95 21in Torpedo had a range of 
6,000yds at 50 kts
8,200yds at 46 kts

There was a type 96 21in Torpedo that used partial Oxygen but it only had a range of
4,900 yards at 49 kts.

The type 14 Standard US Submarine torpedo
4,500 yards at 46 knots

The US did have a high performance torpedo late in the war the Mark 16
13,700 yards at 46 knots

I strongly suggest the attached site for anything to do with Naval Weapons. Its very comprehensive and accurate. You will find it of interest

NavWeaps - Naval Weapons of the World - 1880 to Present

If I can throw my own little story about Torpedo's. When I was in the RN the first of the Stingray anti submarine torpedo's were being tested as part of the development process. The torpedo's were launched at real submarines as part of the test with a built in miss distance. One of the crews reported that they knew the RN were on to a winner, when the torpedo after attacking the submarine, realised it had missed, turned around and came back for another go.
No doubt other torpedo's can now do this, but it made them feel a bit cold.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

I bet! Thanks for the link Gilder....


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2008)

Glider said:


> I strongly suggest the attached site for anything to do with Naval Weapons. Its very comprehensive and accurate. You will find it of interest
> 
> NavWeaps - Naval Weapons of the World - 1880 to Present



The site has torpedo warhead figures completely screwed up however.

All German Type G7e torpedoes carried a warhead of 280 kg Hexanite except the T5's which was 6 kg less at 274 kg.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> The site has torpedo warhead figures completely screwed up however.
> 
> All German Type G7e torpedoes carried a warhead of 280 kg Hexanite except the T5's which was 6 kg less at 274 kg.



To be fair the notes section does mention the difference in weights and the source from which his entry is selected. That is all you could expect anyone to do.

Can I ask where you obtain your figures?


----------



## Soren (Jan 5, 2008)

"The U-boat" by Rossler

PS: U-boat.net lists the same figures btw..


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 5, 2008)

Any ideas why Sweden only is on naval guns and not on the other lists? I've always thought that we built our own torpedoes, missiles etc...


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

Am presently reading "Hitler's U- Boat War" "The Hunted 1942-1945" by Clay Blair, 1998. Page 314. " Hailed by some historians and engineers as another great technical achievement, the snort was not that by a long shot. Rather it was a miserable, temporary device that German U-Boat crews hated absolutely. They resisted it's installation on their boats and used it not continuously, as often depicted, but only very sparingly ( ordinarily about four hours a day) to charge batteries, owing to the high fuel oil consumption experienced when running submerged on diesels." Blair quotes Herman Werner in "Iron Coffins" when the ball float jammed shut, creating a vaccum in the boat. " The men gasped for air, their eyes bulging. The chief lowered the boat, bringing the snort head below the surface in an effort to loosen the float." Eventually, "the float cleared with a snap and air was sucked into the boat with a long sigh. The sudden change in pressure burst many an ear drum. Some of the men covered their faces in pain and sagged to the deck plates. Others swallowed violently to equalize the pressure." Blair, " Owing to crew complaints and technical bottle necks, the Germans fitted the snort much more slowly than usually described." This book is exhaustively researched, very detailed and written by an expert on submarine warfare. It explodes a lot of myths about WW2 and the Battle of the Atlantic.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

There were different types of schnorchels used, the early ones created some problems namely the vacuum effect, but bursting eardrums is never mentioned - sometimes the engine just simply cut out. These problems were eliminated with the later schnorchels, the system being completely automated.

Also the engine crew would have had to be completely unaffected by this vacuum effect for them allowing it to continue long enough so that eardrums would burst, something which sounds very unrealistic.


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

Some more interesting facts about the u-boat war in the Atlantic. 859 u-boats set off on war patrols, 648 were lost, 75%. Of these 429 had no survivors. 215 u-boats, 33%, were lost on their first patrol. From September 1942 to May, 1945, the Allies sailed 953 convoys east and west on the North Atlantic and Middle Atlantic runs. These convoys comprised 43,426 merchant ships. Of these, 272 were sunk by u-boats. 99.4% of all Allied merchant ships sailing in North Atlantic convoys in this period reached their destination intact. The snorkel U-Boats and the Type XXI boats were failures and never had any chance of changing the course of the war. As with the types VII and IX the facilities and amenities (habitibility) of the type XXI provided for the comfort and feeding of the crew did not even meet the minimum standards of the US Navy. Owing to the interconnections of washing and drinking water, the sanitation was deemed to be "inadequate" and "unsafe." Until the latter months of 1942, Allied AC sank very few u-boats unassisted by surface ships. With the perfection of centimetric-wavelength radar the 4 engine long range bombers such as B24s, B17s and Halifax, land based AC vaulted to top rank as U-Boat killers. They sank unassisted 204 u-Boats and 30 more in cooperation with surface ships, nearly 33% of all German losses. Sounds like the airborne radar worked pretty well.


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

Just quoting from the memoirs of Herman Werner on the snorkel problems. There were a number of other evolutions the crew went through to try and unjam the ball which consumed a good deal of time. Perhaps it would be good if "Iron Coffins" was reviewed.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

> As with the types VII and IX the facilities and amenities (habitibility) of the type XXI provided for the comfort and feeding of the crew did not even meet the minimum standards of the US Navy.



Don't know where you have that from but it is complete and utter bollocks. The Type XXI set a whole new standard as far as crew habitability goes.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> Some more interesting facts about the u-boat war in the Atlantic. 859 u-boats set off on war patrols, 648 were lost, 75%. Of these 429 had no survivors. 215 u-boats, 33%, were lost on their first patrol. From September 1942 to May, 1945, the Allies sailed 953 convoys east and west on the North Atlantic and Middle Atlantic runs. These convoys comprised 43,426 merchant ships. Of these, 272 were sunk by u-boats. 99.4% of all Allied merchant ships sailing in North Atlantic convoys in this period reached their destination intact. The snorkel U-Boats and the Type XXI boats were failures and never had any chance of changing the course of the war. As with the types VII and IX the facilities and amenities (habitibility) of the type XXI provided for the comfort and feeding of the crew did not even meet the minimum standards of the US Navy. Owing to the interconnections of washing and drinking water, the sanitation was deemed to be "inadequate" and "unsafe." Until the latter months of 1942, Allied AC sank very few u-boats unassisted by surface ships. With the perfection of centimetric-wavelength radar the 4 engine long range bombers such as B24s, B17s and Halifax, land based AC vaulted to top rank as U-Boat killers. They sank unassisted 204 u-Boats and 30 more in cooperation with surface ships, nearly 33% of all German losses. Sounds like the airborne radar worked pretty well.



Hehe, those are definitely not facts. Many times the bombers destroyers THOUGHT they had destroyed a U-boat, but many times the hadn't even come close. The German U-boats used all manner of tricks to convince the Allies that they were sunk so they could escape in safety, and it worked very well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2008)

Do you have statistics on how many times this happened?


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

Nope, not at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2008)

Then how do we know it happened many times?

Dont take me wrong. I am not saying it did not. I just want proof so that I can know.


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

Gentlemen, these figures I have quoted are from all sources, USN, British Admiralty, Kreigsmarine, etc and have been correlated and reconciled. This book is extremely well documented and footnoted with all references noted and with many appendixes. Every war patrol with all the particulars is listed including the Captain's name and DOB. Soren, if this data doesn't fit your data or preconceived notions perhaps you could find this book and see for yourself if it is credible. Human interest story. Three boats assigned to patrol in Brazilian waters all commanded by Ritterkreuz holders, among them Friedrich Guggenberger in IXC U-513. After sinking several ships, U513 is attacked on the surface by a PBM piloted by Roy S Whitcomb who drops 4 depth charges, two destroying the boat. Whitcomb seeing Germans in the water drops two rafts and life jackets and notifies tender Barnegat. When she reached scene about dusk she can only find Guggenberger and six EM. After extensive interrogation, Guggenberger, who is the skipper who sank Ark Royal, is incarcerated at a POW camp, Papago Wells, on an Indian reservation in Arizona. Imagine that was interesting for him.


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2008)

Soren 
Renichs facts for the loss rates are about correct. Different sources give different exact figures but I have no reson to doubt they are as close as you are going to get. I haven't checked them with UBoat.net, but I would be suprised if they differed by much. There certainly close to the numbers I have. 

Re the book Iron Coffins, I have suggested this book to you a couple of times and still suggest that its a good read by someone who was there and whose views should be given serious consideration. There is no doubt that the second version of the the schnorkel was better than the first but its sobering to realise that his Boat, U953 had the later version, not the first.

As for living conditions the type XXI did have good conditions that were roughly the same as the US Fleet boats, but the type VII in particular, like the British boats, were way behind in habitability.


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2008)

As a matter of fact, the claims that the German skippers reported were usually around 30% to 50% high. I would think that would be no surprise given the conditions the U-Boats were operating under. I am sure that the claims by US submariners were always too high also. Having said that, the Allies knew how many ships were lost and when and where they were lost. The Germans knew when a boat did not come back and also when contact was lost with the boat and kept careful records on that. The Allies knew when an escort attacked a contact and how many depth charges and other weapons were used and where it happened. The same for aircraft. A careful survey and correlation of all these records would allow a good researcher to pin down all but a hand full of merchant ship sinkings and u-boat losses as to who, what, where, when and by what means. Needless to say, all this correlation of data has been done post war. If one wants to argue with the conclusions of all these German, British and American researchers and statisticians, well, I suppose nothing is provable.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

A hugely deciding factor for why the Germans lost the battle of the Atlantic was the capture of one its Enigma crypting machines, the Allied cracking of the codes pretty much meant they knew where the U-boats were and were going to be - a HUGE advantage. 

It is quite clear that in the short periods where the Enigma wasn't cracked the U-boats were dealing out huge blows to the Allied merchant fleets.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 7, 2008)

What times would that be Soren?

_1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)

British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)

Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)

1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)

Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.

1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)

Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.

1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)

Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.

1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)

Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.

So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476

US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT

U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171

U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. 

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk_


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

Where is that info from AL ?

According to my sources atleast 63 Allied ships were sunk in 1945, not just 8.


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> A hugely deciding factor for why the Germans lost the battle of the Atlantic was the capture of one its Enigma crypting machines, the Allied cracking of the codes pretty much meant they knew where the U-boats were and were going to be - a HUGE advantage.
> 
> It is quite clear that in the short periods where the Enigma wasn't cracked the U-boats were dealing out huge blows to the Allied merchant fleets.



Not quite right Soren. Of course the capture of the Enigma was a huge advantage but even when the allies didn't have an example, and / or when the Germans added a fourth rotor to the machine so we couldn't break it for a while, the Allies were quite good as avoiding German wolf packs. 
It was by no means a case of without the Enigma the Allies had severe losses and with it they didn't. Radar and Huff Duff played their share, plus estimates on the U Boat intentions based on information gleaned from plots on where there radio transmissions were made from.

Its often forgotten that the Germans also had a fair bit of success in this area breaking the code used for the convoy routings for large parts of the war. A significant plus to the Germans.

In so many areas of conflict, there was an ebb and flow of the advantage but as I said once the Allies had the machine and the settings for three months they did retain the advantage.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Where is that info from AL ?
> 
> According to my sources at least 63 Allied ships were sunk in 1945, not just 8.


That agrees with:

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 - 125/663,308
*Tot45* - *63*/284,476

I can't find where it says 8. Where abouts does it say 8?

Found on some forum while doing a net search.


----------



## renrich (Jan 8, 2008)

Al. My source states that for 1945, the Allies sailed a total of transatlantic CONVOYS between the Americas and Britain and between the Americas and Gibralter and the reverse: 202 convoys, 8514 ships, 7 losses. Losses were from convoys or stragglers from convoys. During this same period the U-Boat losses were 172. I think the discrepancy between the 7 or 8 figure and the 63 number is the 63 is for all over the world and includes ships not in CONVOY. Of course the 172 U-Boats lost is for all over the world but does NOT include boats surrendered or scuttled.. German submariners lost during 1945 is 7740 men with 280 cptured.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 8, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Of the fighting parties in WWII, which had the better submarine force. Which of those from USN, Kriegsmarine, RN, IJN, RM and so on was the better weapon system as say today?QUOTE]
> 
> Do you mean "better" as in most effective? Or had the best equipment? And what year of the war? I think its safe to say that the German U-boats had the greatest impact.


----------



## renrich (Jan 9, 2008)

Well, if we go by effective then I believe the USN would get the nod because their subs almost wiped out the Japanese merchant fleet. The Kreigsmarine never even came close to wiping out the Allie's merchant fleet.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> Well, if we go by effective then I believe the USN would get the nod because their subs almost wiped out the Japanese merchant fleet. The Kreigsmarine never even came close to wiping out the Allie's merchant fleet.



Yes that would be true I suppose, there are so many permutations of the question, I wonder which had the greatest tonnage sunk per # of boats. 

Renrich do you know about Japanese ASW efforts? I know it was quite weak, but they did get some technology from Germany too. How effective were they vs. subs?


----------



## renrich (Jan 9, 2008)

I don't believe that the Japanese ASW efforts were as effective as the Allies were. However a lot of US subs did not come back. One of the reasons their ASW efforts did not reach the level of efficiency of the Allies was that they had not the long range 4 engine bomber to convert for ASW. Subs were credited with sinking 1152 Japanese merchant ships (of over 500 tons) for a total of 4,861,317 gross tons plus a good many war ships. About 2 % of those figures are credited to British and Dutch subs.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2008)

I would certainly agree with Renrich re the belief that the Japanese ASW efforts were not as effective as the Allies. 
There was one area where they were at least as good as the US and that was in the use of MAD detectors.
The USA had such as system and I am not able to say which was best but it is true to say that the Japanese system was very effective. A number of US subs were lost to these attacks which came without warning


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Am presently reading "Hitler's U- Boat War" "The Hunted 1942-1945" by Clay Blair, 1998. Page 314. " Hailed by some historians and engineers as another great technical achievement, the snort was not that by a long shot. Rather it was a miserable, temporary device that German U-Boat crews hated absolutely. They resisted it's installation on their boats and used it not continuously, as often depicted, but only very sparingly ( ordinarily about four hours a day) to charge batteries, owing to the high fuel oil consumption experienced when running submerged on diesels." Blair quotes Herman Werner in "Iron Coffins" when the ball float jammed shut, creating a vaccum in the boat.



The above sounds to me as if Blair having an agenda to disprove the 'myth' of the Schnorkel. It was useless, primitive etc, the crews resisted it fiercely, and even then, didn`t use it at all. As proof he quotes an incident where a Schnorkel had technical failure in a boat and brought some rather unpleasant moments to the crew. 

The XXI was primitive, 'a failure', crew conditions - naturally - inferior to US designs etc. Then came the '99%' statistics like if the Battle of the Atlantic was some sort of saturday ride in the amusement park, with Uboots bumping into each other, if not busy suffocating from using that _Schnorkel_.

The loss list for some reason cherry pick the convoys, and ignore the merchantmen losses occuring outside the convoys, ignore the loss of shipping capacity due to having to assemble etc. a convoy. Yet one wonders, where did that 14 GRT shipping go

Yet each and every maritime nation tried to lay it`s hands on at least one, and copied it`s features along with the Schnorkel. _Hmmm._

Description like these just stinks. I have no doubt each and everything Blair writes down is has truth in it, or is based on serious research, on the other hand some of his conclusions just increadibly stinks of bias and selectiveness.

Besides I don`t quite get what sort of 'myths' he dubunkes. The story of the Atlantic Battle, and the losses were well researched and known before Blair`s book came out in the mid 1990s. It`s not just the U-boot war, Blair has a rather solid record in his works of being smarter (or at least thinking so) than everyone and anyone, regardless of nationality. He loves to ridicule and to criticize.. and overdoes it a bit. In short, I take what he writes with a grain of salt.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Well, if we go by effective then I believe the USN would get the nod because their subs almost wiped out the Japanese merchant fleet. The Kreigsmarine never even came close to wiping out the Allie's merchant fleet.



... and of course these results have absolutely nothing to do with the relative shipbuilding potential, size of available merchant fleets and the relative amount of ASW faced enemy forces faced in the two theatres?

Very silly arguement. Simple fact is that in 1942 alone the Kriegmarine sunk more enemy shipping than the USN subs in the entire war; another simple fact is that the Allies could _just_ endure that because the immense shipbuilding capacity the US had.

It is a simple matter of grossly incomparable industrial capacity of the two sides, rather than any wishful tactical/technical superiority. A _cliché_, but WW2 was decided in the factories.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 10, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> The above sounds to me as if Blair having an agenda to disprove the 'myth' of the Schnorkel.


Sounds like he is saying that it was not as great as some think it was. Pointing some of the negatives is not an agenda but reality.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> ... Very silly arguement. Simple fact is that in 1942 alone the Kriegmarine sunk more enemy shipping than the USN subs in the entire war; another simple fact is that the Allies could _just_ endure that because the immense shipbuilding capacity the US had.
> 
> .



True, but its also true that the Germans lost more submarines in 1942 than the USN lost in the entire war.
55 USN vs 86 German Navy


----------



## renrich (Jan 10, 2008)

Kurfurst, see your point about Blair's book. I think one of the things I learned(not for the first time) that history is not always just about facts but also about the interpretation of those facts. I have no doubt that Blair may have an agenda, he was an American submariner. However I have in my library a number of books that address the u-boat war and the impression one gets is that (even in S E Morrison's books) that the outcome of the war at least at one point largely hinged on the "Battle of the Atlantic" To me the "Battle of the Atlantic" now seems to fall into the same category as the BOB, not quite as close run as previously thought. Absolutely this does not denigrate the devotion, skill and bravery of the German submariners or British or German pilots. In fact, it highlights the qualities of most of the u-boat crews and officers. Of course they were humans and there were many aborted patrols, probably a few not based on real operational or mechanical problems. The conditions the u-boat crews endured were extremely difficult. The mental strains are easy to imagine, locked in a metal cylinder hundreds of feet below the surface but couple that with moldy food, no bathing for 90 days, crowded conditions, fresh water shortages, sicknesses spreading among the crews, too cold or too hot and if you are too damaged to remain submerged you surface either to get demolished or possibly struggle for days on the surface to get back to port or maybe take a bath in the chilly North Atlantic or go swimming with the sharks in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean. No wonder some of them went crazy. At least a number of German submarine men got saved by their enemy and could expect reasonably humane treatment. I wonder if any US submariners survived "rescue" by the enemy. As far as effectiveness is concerned, if one judges by the overall impact on the outcome of the war, the American subs win hands down but it is obvious that the tremendous efforts of the u-boats were largely negated by American ship building prowess. Which could lead us back to the thread, Did America Save Europe?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> As far as effectiveness is concerned, if one judges by the overall impact on the outcome of the war, the American subs win hands down but it is obvious that the tremendous efforts of the u-boats were largely negated by American ship building prowess.* Which could lead us back to the thread, Did America Save Europe?*



Yes Renrich, although the Axis subs could have had *a far bigger impact* on the Allied war effort. I think I might start a new thread, as the title "Did Us save Europe" was seen as insulting by some, and has also been splitting into different directions, ie. "1941 US Isolationist" scenario, "Pacific First" scenario and even side trips to Stalingrad an invasion of Alaska.


----------



## renrich (Jan 10, 2008)

Good idea, but sure is going to get convuluted.


----------



## renrich (Jan 10, 2008)

Over and over again, when one really gets into history, it is obvious that a totalitarian regime has a big advantage over a democracy in matters of war. The leaders or at least some of them of a democracy may believe that certain actions should be taken to forestall a war or get the country ready for war but they pretty much have to bow to the will of the people and often the voter is ill informed or misinformed and the news media seldom are that well informed either. Chamberlain and Churchill and Roosevelt all faced that problem although Chamberlain also appeared to be suffering from a severe case of wishful thinking. I believe George Bush is dealing with that same problem today, a very poorly informed electorate.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Over and over again, when one really gets into history, it is obvious that *a totalitarian regime has a big advantage over a democracy in matters of war*. The leaders or at least some of them of a democracy may believe that certain actions should be taken to forestall a war or get the country ready for war but they pretty much have to bow to the will of the people and often the voter is ill informed or misinformed and the news media seldom are that well informed either. Chamberlain and Churchill and Roosevelt all faced that problem although Chamberlain also appeared to be suffering from a severe case of wishful thinking. I believe George Bush is dealing with that same problem today, a very poorly informed electorate.



Another interesting thread perhaps?  In some ways yes, but in other ways no. The British Chiefs (mainly Brooke) realized that Churchill was very wary of directly overruling them in matters of war planning, if the CoS had good arguments and were united against what they thought was a bad plan, such as "Jupiter" (Narvik) then he would not go ahead without their support. (possibly because he had earlier been stung over "Gallipoli") Hitler on the other hand, would simply dismiss any commanders that told him facts or analysis that he did not like.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Over and over again, when one really gets into history, it is obvious that a totalitarian regime has a big advantage over a democracy in matters of war. The leaders or at least some of them of a democracy may believe that certain actions should be taken to forestall a war or get the country ready for war but they pretty much have to bow to the will of the people and often the voter is ill informed or misinformed and the news media seldom are that well informed either. Chamberlain and Churchill and Roosevelt all faced that problem although Chamberlain also appeared to be suffering from a severe case of wishful thinking. I believe George Bush is dealing with that same problem today, a very poorly informed electorate.



I would tend to disagree. Totalitarian regimes find it easy to start wars, but in the end they tend to lose them.
WW1, WW2, Korea, even down to the Falklands are examples


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2008)

Glider, of course you are right. A democracy once aroused can be a powerful advesary. What I meant was that voters in democracies tend toward complacency and the status quo and of course low taxes for themselves individually(it is alright to tax people who make a lot of money but not me) and forget that the most legitimate function of government is to provide security against the enemies of the country. Actually Japan did the US, Britain and all free countries a favor by, over night, turning an isolationist country into a patriotic, war making, vengeful nation. Al Quaeda did the same on 9-11. Us being Americans however and spoiled we have short memories and short attention spans. If Al Quaeda is smart, they will confine their activities to other countries so as to not to remind the US of what the war against Islamist extremists is all about.


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2008)

This relates back to the discussion re America saving Europe during WW2. From John Keegan, "Fields of Battle, The Wars for North America" Page 17, "America has changed my life. America has saved my world, the European world threatened by two pitiless dictatorships which overshadowed my childhood and growing up."


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

To get back on track;

The German Type XXI submarine is the best U-boat of WW2 on all accounts including, speed, stealth, armament, habitability diving depth. 

The second in line would be either the late Type IXD2 VIIC/42.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> To get back on track;
> 
> The German Type XXI submarine is the best U-boat of WW2 on all accounts including, speed, stealth, armament, habitability diving depth.


Correct



> The second in line would be either the late Type IXD2 VIIC/42.



Second come the US Fleet boats for all the reasons listed before


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

> Second come the US Fleet boats for all the reasons listed before



Huh ?!

The US boats only featured slightly better habitability, the German boats featured better armament, stealth diving depth. The Type IXD2 Type VIIC/42 definitely take the second spot!


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Huh ?!
> 
> The US boats only featured slightly better habitability, the German boats featured better armament, stealth diving depth. The Type IXD2 Type VIIC/42 definitely take the second spot!



The Type XXI was the clear winner, no question. 

Comparing the Fleet boats to the Type VII and IX

Habitability on a fleet boat was at least on a par with the Type XXI and much much better, than the Type VII and IX.

Stealth didn't work on the Type VII and Type IX. Only fitted to a maximum of 10 boats including the trials boats and shot full of problems i.e. they came off and flapped, resulting in noise and reducing the speed/range of the boat.

Torpedo's Germany has the edge but US ones were effective once they got over the intitial problems.

Depth of dive - Germany had the advantage a significant one for most of the war but the last class of Fleet boats matched the Germans.

Snorkel - despite its problems, the Germans have a definate lead here

Sonar - The USA has the lead with better active sonar and equal to the Germans in passive sonar

Radar - The USA had the advantage here. 
Their active radar was better than German sets as were the Search radar sets.

Passive warning - The German sets tended to be quickly out of date, in some cases almost as soon as they were issued. An out of date passive system is useless.

Range - The Fleet boat had a longer range than the Type VII and about the same as the Type IX. Some versions of the Type IX had a longer range, others shorter so I would consider it a match, but if you want to compare the biggest of the Type IX's then the IX has the advantage.

Communications - The Fleet boats could talk to each other underwater using a frequency on their active sonar as a means of transmitting morse. For obvious reasons not used anywhere near the enemy. However, they could also use their radar as a secure line of sight communication to another boat

There are arguments for and against the Type IX and the Fleet. Personally I go for the better living conditions, warning systems, radars and communication.

There is one big unknown. The USN were up against a nation that was well behind the curve when it came to ASW warfare. How well each would have fared in the others place is a big unknown.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

Glider,

I'm in a hurry so I'll just address your comments the Type XXI.

The Type XXI featured much better habitability than any US boat. Fitted with an automatic schnorchel several airconditioning systems the boat was continously vented and kept odour free while temperature was kept at a constant comfortable level. Besides this the Type XXI boat featured large crew comfort areas as-well as multiple showers, large storage freezers, kitchens, bathrooms etc etc..

The Type XXI was unequalled in every way..


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> I'm in a hurry so I'll just address your comments the Type XXI.
> 
> ...



The Fleet boats had the air conditioning, messing/recreational areas away from the sleeping areas (don't know how close that is to crew comfort areas), freezers, showers not baths and well equipped kitchens.
I have a description of a British 'S' class captain who was sent to the Pacific to fight the Japanese on his first visit to a Fleet Class Boat. He couldn't believe it, he had never having seen anything like it and said he felt that he something dead and smelly that the cat had brought in. 
It might not be quite the same as the Type XXI but it was light years ahead of the Type VII and Type IX.

There is one mistake on my last posting. The depth statement was wrong. The last Fleets had an operating depth of 450ft and a crush depth of 750ft, I noted the wrong figure. Apologies for this.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

The Type VIIC Type IX boats all featured airconditioning as-well Glider, but neither them nor the US ones were as effective as those placed in the Type XXI subs. 

The torpedoes were also automatically loaded by hydraulics, seriously relieving the crew of some very time energy consuming hours in the torpedo compartment.

Besides this the Type XXI also featured the most advanced sonar equipment in the world. The system being used as a blind fire targeting system all the way down to a depth of 160 ft, and with pinpoint accuracy.

A similar system was fitted on some of the later Type IX VIIC boates, and the Allies never had anything to equal this.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Type VIIC Type IX boats all featured airconditioning as-well Glider, but neither them nor the US ones were as effective as those placed in the Type XXI subs.
> 
> The torpedoes were also automatically loaded by hydraulics, seriously relieving the crew of some very time energy consuming hours in the torpedo compartment.
> 
> ...



I have never doubted that the Type XXI was the best by some margin and have said so a number of times. No disagreement there. I was comparing the fleet boats to the Types VII and IX.

Certainly the Type VIIc didn't have air conditioning in the way that we know it. It did have what was called 'Air Conditioning' but that was in the emergency ventalation system and consisted of Soda Lime in flat cans to be inserted into the ventalation system to clean the air of Carbon Dioxide.

I am also pretty confident that the Type VII didn't have any deep freeze for the food.

Re the Automatic loading of the torpedo's I don't see it. On the Type XXI which certainly did have this ability, the torpedo's were kept in a container that was lined up with the tube. The Hydraulics were able to 'push' the torpedos into the tube. 
Attached is a photo of the forward torpedo area on U570. The spare torpedo's were in two layers on the floor of the compartment four on the bottom and two above them. Above the torpedo's was a false wooden floor on which the crew lived and their bunks can easily be seen. There is no way that the reloading could be done automaticaly, there is no room for the machinery and no way of lifting the torpedo's off the deck and lining them up. It would be far more complex than on the Type XXI.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

Glider,

You seem to have misunderstood what I said:

The Type XXI was the ONLY U-boat of WW2 to feature a automatic reloading system. 

I wasn't talking about the Type IX or VIIC's in my previous post, just the Type XXI.

But do note that the Type IX VIIC both recieved the advanced sonar targeting system. This device made the German U-boats the undisputed champs when it came to hunting down and sinking other subs.


----------



## renrich (Jan 15, 2008)

My source on Type XXI: Poor structural integrity, crudely made, could not reach design depths and not as resistant to depth charges as earlier boats, hull failed at 800 feet, in reality failure depth was much less. Diesel engines underpowered. Design HP was 2000, reality was 1200 HP, max surface speed was 15.6 knots. Reduction in HP meant longer time to carry out full battery charge. Impractical hydraulic system. Most vital lines outside pressure hull, subject to leakage, corrosion and enemy weaponry. Could not be repaired while submerged. Poor habitability. Did not meet minimum standards of USN. "On paper" a good boat, not so in reality. How many kills was the type XXI responsible for?


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

Renrich, who'ever wrote that obviously hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

The top surface speed of 15.6 knots was due to the smaller diesel engines put into the design, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the engines not living up to the promised performance specifications. On electric engines the Type XXI reached speeds of 17.2 to 18 knots submerged, which was mindblowingly fast for a U-boat back then.

As to detectability, by virtue of the new hull design creep engines the Type XXI was by far the stealthiest U-boat on earth, being able to run on super silent at 7 knots, the absolute top submerged speed of most U-boats at the time. And on top of this the Type XXI was even more silent at this speed than any other running on creep. 

The habitability of the Type XXI was none other than excellent, it was a luxury yacht compared to earlier types, and better than any US boat.

The hydraulic reloading system functioned perfectly and saved the crew a lot of precious time, the boat being able to fire 18 torpedoes in less than 20 minutes!

As to the rigidity of the hull, nothing wrong there either, all the boats which saw service had been tested down to 230m without any signs of problems. The hull could take it down to 280m no doubt, but regardless it would never be necessary or even attempted as nothing was guaranteed at such depths, hence all the deep sea test runs were down to 230m.

Now regarding the "kills" of the Type XXI subs, well Renrich, none ever saw combat, so go figure. Two got real close though (Both utilizing the Type XXI's excellent stealth capabilities):

_Then on May 3 1945, the unthinkable, but inevitable happened. A message from BdU: Germany had surrendered. All U-boats were ordered to cease hostilities and were to sail to the nearest allied port under a black flag. Nevertheless, U-2511 had the British cruiser HMS Suffolk in its sights. Schnee carefully evaded the heavy escort screen, closed in to 600 meters of the cruiser, and raised the periscope. The torpedoes were primed, and he ordered the tube doors opened. As the British cruiser crossed the targeting crosshair on his periscope - instead of giving the order to fire, he simply cursed, lowered the scope, dived under the target and made off for Norway, unknown to those sailing above him. 

The other Type XXI, Kptlt. Helmut Manseck of U-3008 had just sailed from Wilhelmshaven on May 3, 1945. Shortly after departing, the message of Germany’s surrender was received, Manseck spotted a British convoy and carried out a dummy attack. He slipped away undetected and returned to port. _


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2008)

Have to agree with Soren on this posting, the habitability of the XXI compared to the US we can put to one side as they were both excellent.
There were some problems in the early days with the building due to distruption caused by bombing and training the crews took longer than the Germans hoped, but it was more a case of Senior Ranks being unrealistic than an inherrant design issue and the problems were overcome.

It should be remembered that the Type XXI was a brand new design, being built in a manner never tried before, stuffed full of technology which had never been installed before, needing tactics that had never been used before and all without a Prototype. It was only to be expected!!

But I emphasise that these were overcome and the performance figures met.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 16, 2008)

Re: Sonar 

Glider,

I`d suggest you read up Friedman on post-WW2 US boats. He leaves very little doubt about how even the best USN sonars in 1945 related to the GHG. Basically, the latter was in an entirely different class, and post war US (Soviet, Federal German etc.) sonars were rip-offs and improved models of it.

When I`ll have a bit of time, I will type the text for you guys..


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren, the guy who wrote that is one of the foremost and prolific of all writers in the world on WW2 submarines. I am sorry that you don't agree with him. His book that I quoted him from is voluminous and extremely well researched, referenced and footnoted. Unfortunately this particular part of the book is footnoted back to his first volume which I don't have. However as is most of the information in the book, I am sure it comes from sources well recognised and probably based on research by the Allies after the war. Would you mind telling me why the Germans would build an advanced sub like the XXI that was slower on the surface than their other subs? I do believe that I will stick with his data until a more credible authority come along. By the way this author served in subs during WW2. Also by the way, I went through a fleet boat, Grouper, I believe, at Mobile and I don't see how any WW2 sub could be called habitable. I am, or was, a little over 6 feet tall and I don't believe I could fit in the officer's bunks.


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2008)

Renrich, can I ask the name of the book please. I am not doubting it but it does go against anything that I have read and I wold like to try and get a copy.
I have two books that go into detail about German Submarines and two more that cover the undersea war in general and none of them mention the porblems you mention above.
The question you ask re the surface speed doesn't suprise me as the Type XXI was designed for underwater speed and like any modern submarine, is faster underwater than on the surface.
I haven't been on a US Fleet Boat but I have been on a British A class which is of a similar period. Like you I found it cramped, but there is no doubt from the veterans who I was with, that they found the A class very comfortable.

Re habitability, the attached may be of intrest. You may want to compare it to the photo I posted of the Type VII forward torpedo room where men slept.
U-Boot Type XXI in Detail


----------



## renrich (Jan 16, 2008)

"Hitler's U-Boat War, The Hunted, 1942-!945", Clay Blair. There is an earlier volume which I don't have. This is a library book and I have checked it out twice for this discussion. Most of the info in the book is from several sources, British, German and American. He has published at least 25 books, 100s of magazine articles. "Silent Victory: The US Submarine War Against Japan" by Blair is a 2 volume work that I own but it is packed. I have 2 other books on the Atlantic sub war checked out from the library now but can already tell they will not be as authoritative as this one.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2008)

Sorry Renrich but Clay Bair isn't a good source on German subs, plus he's obviously a very biased individual as his descriptions of the Type XXI are complete and utter hogwash. His book is rather old as-well IIRC.

Try the book by Rossler I mentioned earlier, absolutely the most historically technically in depth detailed book on the German subs out there! Awesome read!


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2008)

I suspect that Blair's info about the type XXI is based on reports of tests conducted by the Allies post war on captured boats. I don't believe he would lie about these matters. His reputation would be at stake. For instance the info posted by Glider(most interesting) states that the diesels generated 2000 HP. Blair stated that the diesels were designed to be 2000 HP but because the superchargers did not meet specs the actual HP was 1200. His remarks about construction indicated that the boats were built in pre fab sections and then assembled and that the different sections did not fit well together with sloppy welds. Perhaps the boat examined by the Allies was an early production model(or maybe built during deer season) My suspicion is that the performance of the Type XXI that Soren is quoting is based on the design specifications and don't necessarily represent the real world performance of the boats that first came off the ways. Obviously the engines of the boat in Glider's post have been upgraded to the original design specs. 1200HP to 2000HP. Would it be surprising if the first production boats did not meet the quality and performance standards expected especially under the wartime conditions those boats were built under. I have owned many German autos from 1972 to 2000 and none of their AC systems came up to minimum standards for the US. Hope the AC in the XXIs worked better than them. LOL


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 17, 2008)

Basically it would be interesting what Blair`s claims regarding the Type XXI are based on.

Given the author`s controversial reputation, and the fact he is generally prone to a revisionist attitude on all subjects he wrote on, ie. while being so fond of myth-busting he goes over to the other extrme and creates his own myths, I would say it`s not unreasonable to believe Blair`s comments on the Type XXI are more based on his personal inclination to 'bust' the 'myth of the super-XXI' (which may have been overhyped, and started an unhealthy towards it in Blair), and fall over to the other extreme descibing it as a complete piece of crap. It`s not about the XXI, from what I`ve read Blair does that to many subjects in his books, kicking things/people aggressively he doesn`t like.

As for submarine design - the Germans had obviously far more experience on this field than everybody else combined. I would be awfully surprised if they would have made such fatal errors as Blair suggest.

As far as Blair record of greasing torpedoes during WW2 on a Fleet boat - well that kinda fells far from being an engineer and designing operational submarines isn`t it..


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2008)

You make good points Kurfurst. If I can get ahold of his first volume perhaps I can find out where his info on the snort and the XXI came from. However his notes on the snort are backed up by other authors and there are numerous mentions in the German patrol reports of aborts by boats having diesel engine problems and we know that the diesel engines in the Scheer class gave a lot of problems and for that matter there are many mentions of diesel engine defects in American patrol reports. I personally have no doubt that an advanced design such as the XXI would not immediately meet all design specifications and there was not time to do sea trials and get all the bugs out. For that matter, I just read a report on testing a production line F6F5 that stated there were a number of problems with the power plant which kept it from reaching full combat power. That AC had a uprated version of the same engine that was in the F6F3. I don't think it is realistic to think that a brand new design of almost any machine is going to hit the pavement with everything working as planned. By the way, the first operational submarines were built in the US so they had a bit of experience with subs also just like ironclads and powered flight.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> I suspect that Blair's info about the type XXI is based on reports of tests conducted by the Allies post war on captured boats. I don't believe he would lie about these matters. His reputation would be at stake. For instance the info posted by Glider(most interesting) states that the diesels generated 2000 HP. Blair stated that the diesels were designed to be 2000 HP but because the superchargers did not meet specs the actual HP was 1200. His remarks about construction indicated that the boats were built in pre fab sections and then assembled and that the different sections did not fit well together with sloppy welds. Perhaps the boat examined by the Allies was an early production model(or maybe built during deer season) My suspicion is that the performance of the Type XXI that Soren is quoting is based on the design specifications and don't necessarily represent the real world performance of the boats that first came off the ways. Obviously the engines of the boat in Glider's post have been upgraded to the original design specs. 1200HP to 2000HP. Would it be surprising if the first production boats did not meet the quality and performance standards expected especially under the wartime conditions those boats were built under. I have owned many German autos from 1972 to 2000 and none of their AC systems came up to minimum standards for the US. Hope the AC in the XXIs worked better than them. LOL



There is no doubt that some of the early boats did suffer from a lack of quality contol. The boats were built in prefabricated sections and most of these were inland. As they were inland they wouldn't have been built by people experienced in this field. The inevitable result being that they didn't fit as well as they should amongst other reasons and any weakness is a submarine, for obvious reasons is a danger. However this was addressed and quality improved considerably but at the cost of time, the one thing Germany didn't have. 
This was one reason why the first Type XXI commissioned in mid 1944 but only a couple of war patrols were started by the wars end. The other main reason was the level of training required by the crews. 
I cannot comment on the engines but I admit, I would be suprised if they were as poor as Blair reports, Germany were recognised experts in this field.

The following posting is one that I belive to have the ring of truth. It recognises the problems that would be found in a rushed production of such a complex item, as well as the success of the overall design. 

German Type XXI U-Boat Elektroboat UBoat - history, specification and photos


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2008)

Blairs words: "Hurriedly prefabricated in 32 different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the type XXI were crudely made and did not fit together properly." Sounds like what you said Glider. On the engines: " The new model 6 cylinder diesels fitted to the type XXI were equipped with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used." This loss of horse power resulted in a substantial decrease in surface speed as well as speed submerged while using the snort as well as taking longer to charge the batteries. I am paraphasing him here. Sounds credible to me. On the snort:" A snorting u-boat was usually rendered "deaf" and "blind" because the diesels made a terrific racket and the periscopes could not be raised because of vibration and other problems." This referred to all snorkel equipped boats. " By sonar and eyesight, Allied anti sub forces detected u boats by the noise and leaking exhaust smoke of the snorkel." Again sounds credible to me.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Blair is biased Renrich, thats quite clear from his comments as he often twists the actual facts, and he never once says what his source is.

And no Renrich I'm not listing promised spec's, I'm listing listing the mean results achieved in several trials conducted with different boats.´

Surface speed was established as 15.6 to 15.7 knots, while submerged speed was established as 17.2 to 18 knots. Crush depth was calculated to be over 280m, diving trials were conducted successfully down to 230m without any problems.



> I have owned many German autos from 1972 to 2000 and none of their AC systems came up to minimum standards for the US.



What a lousy set of examples you have owned then Renrich, cause I can tell you that over here in Europe American cars are and have always been regarded as very lowstandard in quality compared to German cars. I have friends who own several American cars, and all they are about is power sound, both of which they have plenty off, but the excitement disappears quickly as soon as you try to take a curve with one or have to play its mechanic. The AC systems in German cars work perfectly well, but dependng on the features you want you also have to pay accordingly, most German cars from 2000 and up also feature much more advanced climatic control systems with features like different air temperature sections inside the car etc etc...

The best quality cars you can buy have always been German Japanese.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Blairs words: "Hurriedly prefabricated in 32 different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the type XXI were crudely made and did not fit together properly." Sounds like what you said Glider. On the engines: " The new model 6 cylinder diesels fitted to the type XXI were equipped with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used." This loss of horse power resulted in a substantial decrease in surface speed as well as speed submerged while using the snort as well as taking longer to charge the batteries. I am paraphasing him here. Sounds credible to me. On the snort:" A snorting u-boat was usually rendered "deaf" and "blind" because the diesels made a terrific racket and the periscopes could not be raised because of vibration and other problems." This referred to all snorkel equipped boats. " By sonar and eyesight, Allied anti sub forces detected u boats by the noise and leaking exhaust smoke of the snorkel." Again sounds credible to me.



Re the quality of the build I understand that this was fixed by the second half of 1944 but as I said this was time the Germans didn't have and with training taking nearly 6 months, means that the end of the war is on hand, which of course, it was.
As I said I cannot comment on the engines, it could well have been the inevitable teething troubles of introducing a new design to quickly without sufficient testing. I don't know

On the snort I do have some observations and believe the problem, shall we say, to be overstated. 
Diesel engines produce smoke, its a fact and this will in theory be visible and act as a marker. They are also noisy, also a fact.
First the smoke - In reality two things would almost completely mitigate this.
a) how many times have you been at sea and there has been no wind - almost never I suspect, in the oceans of the world there is nearly always a wind. Any wind would disperse the smoke so it would be almost invisible. 
b) type XXI subs could raise their sensors and radars whilst submerged to check that nothing is around

Then the sound - Type XXI submarines had superb passive sonar well in advance of anything else in the world. They would be able to ensure that there are no naval vessels around.

I am not saying they were imune, certainly not, but they stand an excellent chance of using the snort and not being attacked. Its a whole lot safer than surfacing, thats for sure.


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

For once Soren, we almost agree. Japanese cars tend to be the best for the money although not necessarily in pickups. I won't list them all but first German, all new, was 72 280 SE 4.5, did not get home with it as cam shaft broke. Next was 73 450 SL, tranny went out in 36000 miles. Probably ten M-Bs, four Porsches(928s), one BMW, three or four Audis, the last was a 2000 A6 2.7T, had good AC but service manager told me don't let it get out of warranty, 50000 miles. Sold it at 49000 mile. It was the only one with decent AC. The rest of them were lousy. Don't make me laugh about Germans knowing about AC in cars.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> For once Soren, we almost agree. Japanese cars tend to be the best for the money although not necessarily in pickups. I won't list them all but first German, all new, was 72 280 SE 4.5, did not get home with it as cam shaft broke. Next was 73 450 SL, tranny went out in 36000 miles. Probably ten M-Bs, four Porsches(928s), one BMW, three or four Audis, the last was a 2000 A6 2.7T, had good AC but service manager told me don't let it get out of warranty, 50000 miles. Sold it at 49000 mile. It was the only one with decent AC. The rest of them were lousy. Don't make me laugh about Germans knowing about AC in cars.



Wow you have had bad luck with your cars. If you were talking about BMW I would have agreed with you because even the Germans call it the *Bayrische Mist Wagen* (Bavarian **** Car ). 

But since you are talking about Mercedes here I find that rather hard to believe. Mercedes (atleast the ones built in Germany here) are quality. Very expensive but quality. Other than Jeep that is all my family has ever owned.

In our family right now there is a 55 (not sure on the model though) and it is all original parts and still purs like a kitten, a 03 C 230, a 06 SLK Kompresser, and a 07 E 330. All run great.

As for the AC you are correct, most Germans dont have AC in there cars because it is not needed here on a normal given year. Just roll the window down and you are good to go.


----------



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

Chris, the 10 or so MBs I owned were from 72 to 82, I think. They were all new, one was a diesel and I probably had less trouble with it than any. But you are so right as what passes for AC in Germany just won't cut it in Texas. The only German auto I owned that had good AC was the 2000 or 2001(can't remember which) Audi but it had other problems, electrical and the 2.7 twin turbo gave trouble and were very expensive to work on. I had built a couple of houses for a Porsche dealer and we were friends when I had the several 928s. They were good road cars(the fastest I ever drove was in one, 146 mph) but even with dual AC they wouldn't keep you cool in Texas. He said the only Porsche with good AC was the 924(made by Audi) and that only because it was added on in Houston and was a Jap AC.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 18, 2008)

Excuse me Renrich, but a question come natural: why did you buy that impressive row of expensive cars if you were never happy with them? 
I mean, in that price range there is plenty of alternatives !


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Good question! During those times there were a lot of problems with emission controls that caused cars to have engine issues. Fuel injection alleviated a lot of those problems and the German cars had fuel injection. In 1982 I bought my first rice burner, a Toyota Celica Supra. It had a 3 litre overhead cams straight six. I had a 928 also and when I compared the cars and prices. around 15000 dollars for the Toyota and around 50000 dollors for the Porsche, I began to see the light. Basically though when I had all those expensive German cars (my wife drove them also) it was a case of having more money than sense. Now that I have more judgment than money, I have two rice burners, a 2004 Infiniti FX45 with 65000 miles that drives like new and a Honda Ridgeline which is "not much for pretty but hail for stout" I slipped once with the 2001 Audi but it "broke me from suckin eggs" and I plan on sticking with my rice burners.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

Guys, buy VolksWagen, it works! 

Renrich, 

Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche VolksWagen are all high quality car manufactures and always have been.

BMW produces allot of great cars, but they're expensive. The same goes with Mercedes, Audi VolksWagen, but Porsche beats them all in terms of prices.

The 911 is definitely Porsche's best car, always have been and still is, though they today produce the Cayman etc etc..

Mercedes, well what can I say, quality quality quality and quality, that's all this manufacturer is about. They build a number of sports cars as-well, including the SLR.
 
VolksWagen builds high quality family cars with lots of performance nice features, and then they last! However VolksWagen also builds sports cars, including the most expensive in the world! VolksWagen fully designed built the fastest production road car in the world to date, the Bugatti Veyron with its 1001 HP W-engine(Derived from the VW Nardo). However keeping with tradition they kept the original Bugatti production factory in France.








As for the AC systems, no not many Germans cas have them, they have Climatic control instead which is way better. Many Japanese acrs have this as-well, but you also get more for every buck you spend with Japanese cars.


----------



## Udet (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren,

As i seem to recall i was the one who first commented about this guy, Clay Blair and his cumbersome book.

A massive two-volume book that in my view resulted in some of the strangest works i have come across with regard to WW2.

It is an excellent source of information for it features detailed summaries of U-boats (production programs/commissioned/loss date, etc.), U-boat commanders, Allied merchant ship production and several vivid descriptions of important U-boat action against allied convoys in the Atlantic.

On the other hand the book is an extraordinary case of bias against Germany and the Germans; the bias is so strong one could have a hard time determining whether the author was acting only under the influence of a strong bias or walked toward the domain of a hatred for the Germans.

If referring to the Eastern Front, then i´d say Omer Bertov´s "The Eastern Front: 1941-45: German troops and the barbarization of warfare" is the paralel of Blair´s approach to naval warfare.

There are episodes when Blair´s work became pornography -thank you, but not into it-, when he makes fun of U-boat crews "weeping", or "begging" for rescue to allied escorts after having abandoned their sub...allied crews on destroyers or corvettes commenced "discovering the Germans were not _super men_..." On another related episode i recall, he seemed to have loved describing how a number of "weeping" U-boat crews that just abandoned the sub were chopped off by the propellers of allied escorts.

His effort to downplay absolutely everything that is German: the quality of their submarines and weapons, and also the seamanship of U-boat skippers and crews was a clear obssession from the very outset of the book. 

Clair´s book could all too well have been otherwise titled: "Myth Breaker" perhaps; he had an obssession with a vast set of "myths" shrouding the German U-boat weapon: their submarines were "not the best", their commanders were not professional highly skilled sea men, rather "civilian volunteers" and a long etcetera.

What you should really consider here Renrich is that if such noticeable bias did not influence the author´s reasoning with regard to technical specifications of the Uboats. 

That specific part of "sections of the XXI type not properly fitting together during assembly" was something like Blair´s epitome of sillyness. First, if you read that same section -not included on the quote-, he referred to the fact of fabricating the major hull sections in different factories as a sign of Germany´s desperate condition, poor production planning and -of course- poor quality; after reading Blair´s opus, i was advised fabricating hull sections in different plants or factories was not rare AT ALL in the U.S. or Great Britain; Blair, and this is the significant point, simply ommitted any sources with regard to the alleged "zero experience" such factories had with regard to submarine building. Given the biased nature of the author is that one can at minimum doubt the veracity of the statement.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 19, 2008)

Koeniggsegg has more bhp than Veyron AND weighs LESS as well....it's also green. 8) It cost as I've heard £1.1million! 

At 7200rpm it cranks out 1018 hp and 720lb/ft torque 6100rpm....not bad for a car that weigh less than a modern Mini....










Well, back to topic...


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren, neither VW or MB have a good reputation for reliability here in the US. My experience with the German autos listed although outdated except for the one Audi is that they are far from trouble free, possibly because they are over engineered. Over the years I have had far less trouble with Japanese autos than with Germans. My opinion is that when a German auto has everything working right, they are sweet machines(except for the AC) but the problem is that often everything does not work right consistently and they are very expensive to work on. The first 928 I ordered was in, I think, 1978, when they first hit the US. It was white but a copper brown metallic came in first, I took it and a friend took the white one a few weeks later. Incidently he was with EDS, one of the founders and did much of the planning when EDS got their people out of Iran. At any rate in a few months the tranny on his car cratered and it was replaced under warranty(after a few weeks to get the tranny over here) The dealer was a friend of mine and he said the dealer cost on the tranny was $5100. This was in 78-79! The sticker on the 928 then was about $36000. I would tell you some of the stories about the factory reps from Porsche and their conversations with the owners of the dealerships in the US but you would be insulted. Udet, I don't have the same impression as you about Blair's books. I do believe he had an agenda which was to prove the U- boat war was not as close run as many historians have portrayed it. But I don't believe he denigrates the bravery, skill and devotion of the majority of the U-boat men at all. There were occasions when U-boat skipper were not as brave as others, some were out right cowards and some went mad. They were humans just like Brits and Americans. Time and time agains he recites battles where the U-boat men fought with skill and outright manaical bravery but also many times with great humanity. Example: the Laconia affair. The US did not act in a chivalrous manner there. Perhaps we just have a differnt perspective about WW2. I know that I seldom am pleased with the viewpoints expressed by historians about the War Between the States. I have one book "Battle Cry of Freedom" by Mc Pherson which is supposedly one of the best in print about our Civil War. It was given to me as a gift by my brother, I got half way through it and refused to read any more because I thought he was so biased toward the Union. In many cases it is not what one says but how it is said.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

Renrich,

Again you must have been overly unlucky with your example of cars cause German cars are considered the worlds absolute best quality cars in Europe.

Mercedes Benz is just pure quality, and so is Porsche.

Some have ofcourse had some problems, I particularly remember the BMW 320 series of 2001 having problems with the rim belts breaking, and Audi has recently had problems with their 2004 A6 using way too much oil. These have all been addressed however. 

In terms of the reliability of German cars its all great, some of the most reliable in the world, but if you have to name one German car maker as the worst in terms of reliability then it's Audi. Audi is a great car maker but a few of its cars have recently had some teething problems, namely the excessive oil consumption. They seem to have straightened this now though, and the new Audi A6 runs like a dream, a really high quality car no doubt.

Now about Blair, he is VERY biased Renrich, not only does it show in his choice of words but it also clearly shows when he ventures into the technical history of German U-boats where it is made clear that he is in completely unknown territory.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Koeniggsegg has more bhp than Veyron AND weighs LESS as well....it's also green. 8) It cost as I've heard £1.1million!




The Veyron is faster and costs ~ £2.7 million.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Veyron is faster and costs ~ £2.7 million.



£2.7 million!!!  bl**dy h*ll.....! Has gone up a bit since I last heard the price on the Veyron...not that I could afford before anyway...

Question though Soren, how can Veryon be faster if it's heavier and less powerful? The Koenigsegg CCR was clocked 245 mph the new CCRX has 200 hp more than the CCR which has 806, thanks to running on bio fuel....

I guess that we'll see in the future though....  

Back to the submarine topic, how many subs were sunk by other subs in WWII? Did they ever fight it out, like what's so popular in films...?



£2.7 million.....jeeez!


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

Lucky,

The reason the Veyron is faster is mainly because the Germans payed more attention to the Aerodynamics, and because of this the Veyron has a confirmed top speed of 414 km/h (258 mph). But the new W engine is also a crucial reason, this new engine produces a lot of torque for the given HP, this allows the Veyron to reach 100 km/h in just 2.5 sec's, compared to the 2.9 sec's of the Koenigsegg CCXR. And on top of this the Veyron has Climatic control, CD player and lots of other extra luxury equipment, completely unlike other sports cars.

Just to demonstrate how powerful the Veyron is, here it is drag racing with the one of quickest accelerating cars in world [Mercedes SLR], piece of cake!

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unRvopGXCgA_


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren, unlucky is when one has one or two or three examples of cars that show poor reliability. When one has ten or fifteen that is not bad luck it is a pattern. Maybe MB and Porsche, VW and BMW are building them better now bur the consumer reports here in the US don't seem to reflect that but perhaps they are biased also.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

They might be biased, who knows, but what is for certain is that they're completely different from the European consumer reports. 

Food for thought: German cars are allot more expensive in the states than in Europe.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 19, 2008)

Would love to see the difference in a real drag race start, standing still and with a christmas tree.....
Where will we go from here, eh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> BMW produces allot of great cars, but they're expensive.



Soren BMW is not that great. There is reason that it is known as the *Bayrische Mist Wagen*.



Soren said:


> Mercedes, well what can I say, quality quality quality and quality, that's all this manufacturer is about. They build a number of sports cars as-well, including the SLR.



Soren while I agree that Mercedes is quality and allways has been, it really is slipping now and is not the great quality it used to be. You are mostly buying the name now. Trust me I know. My step mothers whole family works for Mercedes (everywhere from upper management in Stuttgart down to the assy. line workers). My direct family recieves a new Mercedes of choice every year and we all drive Mercedes (except for me, I am a Jeep man ). 

I mean dont take me wrong. Mercedes is still top quality but it is declining quickly while the price is rising.

Below is a pic of me in the family SLK. 













Soren said:


> VolksWagen builds high quality family cars with lots of performance nice features, and then they last! However VolksWagen also builds sports cars, including the most expensive in the world! VolksWagen fully designed built the fastest production road car in the world to date, the Bugatti Veyron with its 1001 HP W-engine(Derived from the VW Nardo). However keeping with tradition they kept the original Bugatti production factory in France.



I will agree that VW is quality.



Soren said:


> As for the AC systems, no not many Germans cas have them, they have Climatic control instead which is way better. Many Japanese acrs have this as-well, but you also get more for every buck you spend with Japanese cars.



No Soren. Most Germans dont have any kind of climate control. They have a heater and fan. There is no need to pay extra for it. 

The only cars that really have AC or Climate control are Mercedes and BMW and most Germans can not even afford those.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

When I say German cars I mean cars made in Germany, not all the cars driven by Germans.

Climate control is a std. feature in medium class German built cars today. Our new second "extra" car, a Golf TDi, features climatic control and that was std. feature.

PS: I think I know why you don't like BMW, your family being employees with Mercedes Benz and all 

BMW is making great quality cars, I've owned driven several, and all I can say is schöne auto!

Ever sat in or driven a M5 or M6 ? Very nice car! (Beyond what I can afford at the moment though  )


Nice car btw Adler! The new SLK got top marks in various magazines. Perhaps I'll go try one soon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> PS: I think I know why you don't like BMW, your family being employees with Mercedes Benz and all



No that has nothing to do with it. That is what BMW is known as. I dont make this up nor did I come up with it. 

I like the BMW's look but they are crap quality. The Trans is only good for about 5 years before it needs major work done on it and they do not survive crash's very well.

In the ADAC yearly report they were found to be the least reliable and the least crashworthy of the top german cars.

You should have even seen the BMW that decided to T-Bone my Jeep. Needless to say I drove home that day. The BMW was towed away.



Soren said:


> BMW is making great quality cars, I've owned driven several, and all I can say is schöne auto!
> 
> Ever sat in or driven a M5 or M6 ? Very nice car! (Beyond what I can afford at the moment though  )



I have driven many BMW.

There is a reason why ADAC rated them lower than Mercedes and VW in there yearly reports. I get the ADAC magazines monthly because I am a ADAC Plus member (which by the way is the best road side service I have ever had and it costs less than 9 Euros a month!).

You should check out the ADAC stuff. BMW is not all that it is made up to be.

*Now this should get back on topic however...*


----------



## Udet (Jan 19, 2008)

Renrich, hello.

I understand very well what you said to me there; there are moments when i feel i´ve just had enough from a book i am reading, but i have never really stopped and will finish reading.

For example, in the case of that freak, Omer Bartov, once i finished reading it, the book went straight into the dustbin. Blair´s book was saved from the same fate due to the very informative annexes it has, plus the several summaries included -that have nothing to do with his bias-.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

> You should check out the ADAC stuff.



Roger will do Adler.

Yes lets get back on topic.


----------



## renrich (Jan 20, 2008)

Maybe we should start a thread about which country builds the best cars and which brand is the best. Seems like a lot of interest in that subject. I enjoy hearing other people's opinions about a subject that most of us have first hand knowledge of, not just paper performance numbers. Udet, Blair's book does have a wealth of statistics which allows one to draw his own conclusions. I can't throw away McPherson's book because it was a gift from a brother and it is highly rated. It is interesting though that as one grows older and still continues to read and participate in excellent forums such as this, I believe that one can become sort of an "expert" and have opinions as valid as published, "well known" historians.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 5, 2008)

Always learn something from these gentlemen....


----------

