type IX and VII
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: March 16, 2001 10:09PM
<HTML>The type IX was bigger than the VII, but basically cut from the same technological cloth. This meant that the IX had greater range, endurance, and firepower. It also was slower to dive, and clumsier underwater. It cost several times as much to build as a VII.
Doenitz hated the type IX and tried to kill it several times before the war, thinking he\'d rather have many VII\'s than fewer IX\'s.
In war, the IX\'s record was checkered: it\'s great range allowed it to go boldly where no VII could go. It kept pressure up on distant sites like the Africa coast and even the Pacific. Because these distant sites were the last to get good allied ASW, many IX\'s prospered in distant locales at a time when VII\'s where coming up empty in the North Atlantic (henke\'s U-515 is an example).
But the IX had to be withdrawn from service in the North Atlantic becuae its clumsiness and lower tolerance for depth charging made it very vulnerable. The loss rate of the IX was several times that of the VII when mixing it up with heavy allied ASW forces.
Overall, the IX was a very mixed bag compared to the VII\'s.</HTML>
Doenitz hated the type IX and tried to kill it several times before the war, thinking he\'d rather have many VII\'s than fewer IX\'s.
In war, the IX\'s record was checkered: it\'s great range allowed it to go boldly where no VII could go. It kept pressure up on distant sites like the Africa coast and even the Pacific. Because these distant sites were the last to get good allied ASW, many IX\'s prospered in distant locales at a time when VII\'s where coming up empty in the North Atlantic (henke\'s U-515 is an example).
But the IX had to be withdrawn from service in the North Atlantic becuae its clumsiness and lower tolerance for depth charging made it very vulnerable. The loss rate of the IX was several times that of the VII when mixing it up with heavy allied ASW forces.
Overall, the IX was a very mixed bag compared to the VII\'s.</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
type IX better than VII??? | Lars | 03/15/2001 12:57PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Dietzsch | 03/15/2001 04:07PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Rainer Bruns | 03/15/2001 05:52PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | 2000 | 03/15/2001 07:35PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Dietzsch | 03/16/2001 09:39AM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Rainer Bruns | 03/16/2001 01:52PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | zach | 03/15/2001 10:38PM |
RE?? | Antonio Veiga | 03/16/2001 09:22PM |
type IX and VII | kurt | 03/16/2001 10:09PM |
RE: type IX and VII | Rainer Bruns | 03/17/2001 02:24AM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Stewart | 03/16/2001 10:59PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | David Jones | 03/18/2001 09:41PM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | Rainer Bruns | 03/19/2001 03:07AM |
RE: type IX better than VII??? | lars | 03/19/2001 08:34AM |