renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
WWII submarines...which was the better one?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Freebird
Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Captain
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
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
Staff Sergeant
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
Staff Sergeant
... 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
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
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
Captain
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
Good idea, but sure is going to get convuluted.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Master Sergeant
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
Captain
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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."
Glider
Captain
Glider
Captain
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.
