Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
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.
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.
I am all ears about that.
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.
