Technology and Operations
This forum is for discussing technological & operational matters pertaining to U-boats.
Re: US Submarines vis-a-vis U-Boats
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: December 05, 2005 07:44PM
Smaller boats means more boats, since the cost of a submarine was (roughly) proportional to the size. So smaller meant more boats meant more sinkings....a powerful argument for smaller boats and one of the main reasons Doenitz pushed for a fleet of small U-boats.
However, I think in retrospect the classic Type VII was undersized. The continual fuel shortages, cut short patrols, U-tankers, etc all were symptoms of a too short a patrol range. I'd point out that with each design iteration in the Type VII class the range increased...a tacit admission of inadequate range.
Also, a lot of the profitable hunting for U-boats, especially after the first couple of years in the first 'happy time', was far a field: off the US coast, the Caribbean, off the coast of Africa. The type VII was barely long ranged enough for the US coast and really did not have adequate legs for South Atlantic operations. A greater number of longer ranged boats would have helped.
Regards,
Kurt
However, I think in retrospect the classic Type VII was undersized. The continual fuel shortages, cut short patrols, U-tankers, etc all were symptoms of a too short a patrol range. I'd point out that with each design iteration in the Type VII class the range increased...a tacit admission of inadequate range.
Also, a lot of the profitable hunting for U-boats, especially after the first couple of years in the first 'happy time', was far a field: off the US coast, the Caribbean, off the coast of Africa. The type VII was barely long ranged enough for the US coast and really did not have adequate legs for South Atlantic operations. A greater number of longer ranged boats would have helped.
Regards,
Kurt
