# Who made the best Subs in WW2



## Hunter368 (Jan 9, 2006)

Germany gets alot of press on their subs but were they actually the best subs of the war? Please comment


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2006)

I can think of any that were better, especially the Type XXI, which was the first "real" ocean going Submarine built for long range underwater submergance. In fact the type XXI were the boats that pretty much led to the post war designs of the allies.

Type XXI

Displacement:
(tons) 1621 (sf) 
1819 (sm)
2100 (total) 
Length: (m) 76,70 oa
60,50 ph 
Beam: (m) 8,00 oa
5,30 ph 
Draught: (draft) 6,32 m 
Height: 11,30 m 
Power: (hp) 4000 (sf) 
4400 (sm) 

Speed:
(knots) 15,6 (sf) 
17,2 (sm) 
Range:
(miles / knots) 15500/10 (sf) 
340/5 (sm) 
Torpedoes: 23
6/0 (bow / stern tubes) 
Mines: 12 TMC 
Deck gun: No deck gun 
Crew: 57-60 men 
Max depth: ca. 280 m
(919 feet) 

sm = submerged, sf = surfaced, ph = pressure hull,
oa = overall, hp = horsepower.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Germany had the best subs, without a doubt.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

The Type XXI was pretty revolutionary without a doubt, and if they'd been built and deployed in numbers sooner it would have spelled big trouble, but the best boats to see service in any numbers throughout the war belonged to the Americans. The Balo and Gato class boats were superior to the old German type VII and IX U-boats. The type VII in particular was never intended for prolonged deep ocean operations, but it was a design that was churned out by the hundreds and used to good effect for quite a while. The Japanese I-boat classes weren't too shabby either, actually.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2006)

Breaking the reply into three (because the third may be a suprise)
1) The Best Submarine of the war was without question is the German Type XXI
2) The Best submarine in service in numbers during the war were the American Fleet submarines
3) I would suggest that the best submarine at the start of the war 1939 was from from Poland. In 1939 Poland had the schnorkel and the AA guns fitted to their subs were twin 40mm Bofors. The Germans captured this technology and one of the suprises of the war is why the Germans didn't use the schnorkel earlier.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2006)

By the way for Nonskimmer one poor photo that I found in the loft. You may have seen it but its the interior of an X craft. What you see is the total space in the boat, behind you is the engine.

Apologies if you have seen it before


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

No matter how good the US subs were, our torpedos stunk. No other word could descibe it, other than criminal charges should have been filed against the Bureau of Ordinance for their negligence in never testing the torpedo's.


----------



## Erich (Jan 9, 2006)

agreed on the KM although few in number the XXIII towards wars end were successful


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2006)

Syscom. Your torpedo's did stink at the start of the war, as indeed did the Germans, but you did identify the problems and fix them by 1943 when the numbers ramped up.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2006)

Thanks for the pic of the X craft, Glider. That's the first time I've seen it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2006)

Glider said:


> Syscom. Your torpedo's did stink at the start of the war, as indeed did the Germans, but you did identify the problems and fix them by 1943 when the numbers ramped up.



The torpedo's had three major flaws that made them next to useless. What made matters so horrible, is the CinC of the sub force in the PTO helped develope them, and he couldnt believe or accept HIS torpedo was flawed. It wasnt untill mid 1943 that all the problems had been identified and fixed, and not untill late 1943 (a full two years at war) that the fleet finally had torpedo's that worked.

I dont think the KM had that type of performance issues.

FYI, the three problems were:
1) Incorrect depth control mechanism designed for a peacetime use of a lightweight practice warhead and not the heavier wartime warhead.

2) Magnetic exploder that sometimes worked, usually didnt. When it did work, it usually prematurely exploded a couple dozen yards from the ship that was targeted. That made the skippers think they actually hit it.

3) The exploder striker was the wrong mass, in which a direct hit at a right angle to the ship meant a high gee impact, deforming the exploder mechanism before the striker could hit the explosive charge. Perversely, a risky shot at high angles, meant the exploder might actually work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> The Type XXI was pretty revolutionary without a doubt, and if they'd been built and deployed in numbers sooner it would have spelled big trouble, but the best boats to see service in any numbers throughout the war belonged to the Americans. The Balo and Gato class boats were superior to the old German type VII and IX U-boats. The type VII in particular was never intended for prolonged deep ocean operations, but it was a design that was churned out by the hundreds and used to good effect for quite a while. The Japanese I-boat classes weren't too shabby either, actually.



Ill agree the Balo and Gato class were great subs. The thing that made teh Type VII so good though was not its design because as you said it was never meant for prolonged operations but rather the Wolf Pack tactics that they deployed.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2006)

German Torpedo's in the first few years were very poor.

The T2 model of the G7e was in service with German U-boat fleets from the first day of WWII. In stark contrast with the G7a steam driven torpedo, the T2 left no visible stream of bubbles to alert ships they were under attack, and was virtually silent. However, these were the T2's only advantages over the G7a torpedo. The T2 in all other respects performed abysmally when compared to the G7a. Its range was much shorter than the G7a's at only 3000 m, and it ran much slower at 30 kt (55 km/h).

Poor range and speed were not the T2's only problems. Both of its exploders were terribly flawed. The magnetic influence mechanism, designed to allow the torpedo to run under the keel of a ship and detonate, breaking the ship's back, was totally inconsistent; often a T2 would detonate prematurely, or not at all. This lead the BdU to order all G7e/T2 torpedoes be fired only for contact detonation. However, the contact pistol of the T2 often did not work, either. The depth-keeping equipment of the T2 often failed as well, leading T2s to miss their targets by running too deeply under a target. Estimates of the failure rate of T2 torpedoes for one reason or another range between 20% and 40%.

However, the German Navy, after much prodding by German Sub Command (BdU), poured resources into correcting the T2's flaws. Gradually, it improved, and by the end of the Norwegian Campaign problems with the contact exploder and depth-keeping gear had been solved, as well as significant strides made in improving the magnetic proximity feature. At the same time, the T2's range was increased from 3000 m to 5000 m and eventually 7500 m. By that time, however, the T2 was already being phased out of production.

As you can see. There were some similar problems to the USA


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2006)

You have to feel for the German crews. In addition to the following the Ark Royal was attacked by U39 with three torpedo's all of which exploded prematurely. U39 was sunk in the counter attack and the crew saved.

On October 30th Kapitänleutnant Wilhelm Zahn of U-56 sighted in his area a truly juicy formation: the battleships Rodney, Nelson, the battle cruiser Hood and a dozen destroyers. Zahn eluded the destroyer screen and struck Nelson with a salvo of three. The impact pistol torpedoes clearly slammed against the ship's hull and…simply fell apart.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 10, 2006)

How was Italy's subs ? Did they have their own or did they use Germany's subs. How did Japan's sub perform?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Glider said:


> You have to feel for the German crews.



Just watch Das Boot and that gives you a feeling right there. Best damn submarine movie in my opinion also.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Glider said:


> You have to feel for the German crews. In addition to the following the Ark Royal was attacked by U39 with three torpedo's all of which exploded prematurely. U39 was sunk in the counter attack and the crew saved.
> 
> On October 30th Kapitänleutnant Wilhelm Zahn of U-56 sighted in his area a truly juicy formation: the battleships Rodney, Nelson, the battle cruiser Hood and a dozen destroyers. Zahn eluded the destroyer screen and struck Nelson with a salvo of three. The impact pistol torpedoes clearly slammed against the ship's hull and…simply fell apart.



Have you ever read about the USN crews going through the same thing? I think one or two skippers actually asked to be relieved of duty due to the mental strain of setting up for a perfect shot, evading escorts, firing the torpedo's, then nothing happening


----------



## Clave (Jan 11, 2006)

I'd have to feel sympathy and respect for *all* submarine crews, it's one place you would never get me to go...


----------



## hartmann (Jan 11, 2006)

> 3) I would suggest that the best submarine at the start of the war 1939 was from from Poland. In 1939 Poland had the schnorkel and the AA guns fitted to their subs were twin 40mm Bofors. The Germans captured this technology and one of the suprises of the war is why the Germans didn't use the schnorkel earlier.


Really, those submarines were designed and built by the Nederlands, and the Schnorkel was proved by the Germans with a Dutch submarine captured (really a German designer suggested about the use of Schnorkel before the war, but this idea was not considered or used until they captured in the dockyard those Dutch submarines.
Best regards


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2006)

Glider said:


> Syscom. Your torpedo's did stink at the start of the war, as indeed did the Germans, but you did identify the problems and fix them by 1943 when the numbers ramped up.



Yes I did hear about the USA torpedo problems.


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2006)

In Chatham dockyard there is an A class submarine you can visit. The guides were all ex RN submariners from WW2 and they all agreed that Das Boot was a very accurate reflection of was at sea in any submarine.

The A class came out just after WW2 but had the same technology and is worth a visit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Clave said:


> I'd have to feel sympathy and respect for *all* submarine crews, it's one place you would never get me to go...



Agreed


----------



## Salim (Apr 11, 2006)

Well I definately learned something new from this discussion. All the while I thought that Germany's torpedoes were pretty much adequate, but then I realized that they weren't exactly pristine. Japan had the best torpedoes of the war, as we all know, and their subs were quite good, but their submarine tactics and doctrine pretty much limited their application and that's why they had such limited sucess against Allied shipping. Of course, the Atlantic war did cause them trouble as well, since the Allies invested lavishly to make new weapons and tactics to put down the U-boat menace and it was used with deadly effect against Japanese submarines (they lost 75% of all subs during the war, similiar to the Kriegsmarine on the other ocean).

Anyway, getting back on topic. I checked out some of the statistics regarding the major U-boat types and American Gato and Balao class submarines and I've noted that there's one advantage that the German subs had over the American. German subs could dive deeper than any American sub of the era. Gato class submarines had a maximum depth of 90 meters (around 300 feet) and the superior Balao had a maximum depth of 120 meters (around 400 feet). Meanwhile, even the pathetic Type II U-boats could dive up to 150 meters and the far superior Type VII and IX could go down to depths of 220 meters (722 feet) and 230 meters (755 feet) respectively.

So I have a question for you all. Just how big a difference does maximum depth really make when considering how good a submarine is? I know that that alone isn't enough to make them the best, but it is a fact to consider, right?

Well, any responses?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 11, 2006)

Hmmm, I highly suspect the figures of 90m and 120m respectively for the Gato's and Balao's are maximum _rated_ depths. They could certainly go deeper. German U-boats weren't crap by any means, but the type VII was designed as a coastal submarine, similar in that respect to the modern Type 209. German crews knew how to get the most out of their boats (and still do).

When it comes to depth in general, the deeper the better. However, this not only aids the submarine in the evasion process, but can actually hinder it's ability to detect surface threats as well. Even the best sonar equipment is effected to some extent by the ocean's thermal layers. It's a tricky balance. As the saying goes though: Run silent, run _deep_. 8)


----------



## Salim (Apr 11, 2006)

I guess you're right about the depth making it harder for sonar to detect surface threats, but if I'm not mistaken, many subs during the war didn't have sonar (at least, not during the first half). All subs had some kind of hydrophone equipment but I'm not sure whether or not the depth of the sub could affect it.

Of course I do agree that running silent would be as important, if not more so, than being deep. Since no matter how deep you are, if you're making a lot of noise, they can still find you and depth charge you to kingdom come!


----------



## Twitch (Apr 11, 2006)

When U-boats coud basically dive to a depth about double or more of any other sub in the world it's pretty much case closed.


----------



## Salim (Apr 11, 2006)

Case closed as in what? They're totally better?


----------



## Twitch (Apr 12, 2006)

Yeah they're totally better! Which sub would YOU want to be on when a squadron of pissed off destroyers start sounding and lobbing depth charges- one that could dive to 3-400 feet or 900 feet?


----------



## Salim (Apr 12, 2006)

You make a very convincing arguement!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2006)

I truely do believe that Germany was leading the world in U-Boot technology. Just check out the Type XXI. They were superior to anything that could go underwater, however they were too little too late as were most innovative Germany designs of anything.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2006)

The Type 21 was the best sub of the war beyond question. 

However if you take that out of the equation and ask which was the best then my vote would go to the American Fleet submarines. These were modern boats with radar and all other mod cons, an excellent range and were quite fast with a heavy warload.

The type VII had the sole advantage of being able to go very deep but if picked up on the surface as most were then this was of little benefit. It wasn't for nothing that they were called black coffins. The Type IX was a better all round boat but its equipment was similar to the VII.

The US boats had a better all round advantage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

Glider said:


> The Type 21 was the best sub of the war beyond question.
> 
> However if you take that out of the equation and ask which was the best then my vote would go to the American Fleet submarines. These were modern boats with radar and all other mod cons, an excellent range and were quite fast with a heavy warload.
> 
> ...



I will agree with that, but with what the Type VII was lacking they made up for in the Wolfpack tactics, atleast in the beginning.


----------



## Glider (Apr 17, 2006)

There is no doubt that the use of the Wolfpack tactics was an excellent plan A, the problem was that the germans didn't have a plan B. Once the allied forces had the equipment to deal with the Wolfpack, the germans were always on the defensive and never caught up. 
There is no reason why they couldn't have developed the type XXI a couple of years earlier and then we would have been in real trouble.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 17, 2006)

If I am allowed to put my money on something, I would still choose Type VIIb in early stage, Gato in the middle stage and XXI or XXIII for the late stage.
But the most advanced submarine wasn´t Type XXI, this title doubtless belongs to Type XXVII true air independent Walter subs with very high submerged speed (25-27kts) and decent range. 
I only have to confirm the worries about german torpedoes for the early (NOT INITIALLY) stage of ww2, particularly for the year 1940 and for electric torpedoes with magnetic pistols. The original steam driven ones were much better and reliable (1939-1940). Japanese submarine torpedoes are average, the vaunted long lance wasn´t used on subs.
British submarine torpedoes were average but reliable.
Italian submarine torpedoes were highly unreliable.
US torpedoes share a lot with german ones, they developed to a higher degree in reliability. Later in the war, both navies fielded very advanced torpedoes (partly with passive homing). US and british submarines also had more sophisticated torpedo calculators on board, german ones had more sophisticated sonar and from mid 1942 on quite advanced passive radar detectors. The dive depth is a vital point. The deepest recovered dive of ww2 was accidently a Type VIIC41 in the Mediterranean, diving to approx. 352m (1.165 ft), hitting the seabed and damaging the boat heavily. It´s close to a wonder that the boat sustained the stress and returned to surface.


----------

