General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: May 03, 2001 08:20PM
<HTML>Superkraut has some good points regarding treaty and political impacts on U-boat size.
I\'d like to add a little.
After WWI there was a lot of respect by the victorious powers for the classic, 800 ton U-boat design that had almost brought England to its knees. Many nations, including the US, felt this was \'a good size\' for a sub - big enough to be ocean going, small enough to be maneuverable, and cheap enough to afford in quantity (and not take up too much towards treaty tonnage limits).
The Type VII was a deliberate attempt to resurrect this classic U-boat class. There were strong feelings that a larger boat would lose in maneuverability, and numbers in the fleet, what it might gain in speed, range, firepower, or habitability in a larger design. When the Germans began rebuilding the U-boat arm in earnest, they settled on a WWI like 800 ton class U-boat (after the coastal/training Type II Ducks) - the Type VII. In use, the Type VII was a bit small in terms of seaworthiness on the mountainous seas of the North Atlantic, and suffered from a lack of range, forcing constant worry over fuel reserves and routine use of mid-ocean refueling, but basically the Type VII was well sized for the mission. Its maneuverability served it well: the Type VII was much more survivable than the larger Type IX in the tough battles of the North Atlantic.
Originally, after WWI the US consciously tried to copy this \'800 ton U-boat\' class, but eventually US went its own way. While the 20\'s era US \'S\' class was about the same size as a Type VII, by the thirties the US was moving towards the \'fleet\' sub. True, the US wanted long range for the vast Pacific. But there were also other factors that dictated a large sub. They wanted higher sustained speed, and greater firepower. The US envisioned the sub as a scout and auxiliary of the fleet, taking a supporting role in a large, decisive, classic Mahan style Naval clash that was the bedrock of American naval planning between the wars. Merchant raiding was considered criminal, and was not a part of design, planning or training of US boats.
As such US subs needed high cruising speed, and therefore a longer length, to keep up with even fast battleships and carriers, and at least a 6 torpedo tube \'broadside\', which was what was calculated as necessary to sink a modern, armored battleship. The need for better habitability and more spares also forced a larger design - the old S boats were notoriously miserable in the tropical heat of the Pacific. Problems in developing a good, light diesel engine forces the US to use four engines, instead of the two in Type VII\'s, further increasing required volume. These factors combined to dictate a large design in US boats.
Shipbuilding resources had nothing to do with it.
</HTML>
I\'d like to add a little.
After WWI there was a lot of respect by the victorious powers for the classic, 800 ton U-boat design that had almost brought England to its knees. Many nations, including the US, felt this was \'a good size\' for a sub - big enough to be ocean going, small enough to be maneuverable, and cheap enough to afford in quantity (and not take up too much towards treaty tonnage limits).
The Type VII was a deliberate attempt to resurrect this classic U-boat class. There were strong feelings that a larger boat would lose in maneuverability, and numbers in the fleet, what it might gain in speed, range, firepower, or habitability in a larger design. When the Germans began rebuilding the U-boat arm in earnest, they settled on a WWI like 800 ton class U-boat (after the coastal/training Type II Ducks) - the Type VII. In use, the Type VII was a bit small in terms of seaworthiness on the mountainous seas of the North Atlantic, and suffered from a lack of range, forcing constant worry over fuel reserves and routine use of mid-ocean refueling, but basically the Type VII was well sized for the mission. Its maneuverability served it well: the Type VII was much more survivable than the larger Type IX in the tough battles of the North Atlantic.
Originally, after WWI the US consciously tried to copy this \'800 ton U-boat\' class, but eventually US went its own way. While the 20\'s era US \'S\' class was about the same size as a Type VII, by the thirties the US was moving towards the \'fleet\' sub. True, the US wanted long range for the vast Pacific. But there were also other factors that dictated a large sub. They wanted higher sustained speed, and greater firepower. The US envisioned the sub as a scout and auxiliary of the fleet, taking a supporting role in a large, decisive, classic Mahan style Naval clash that was the bedrock of American naval planning between the wars. Merchant raiding was considered criminal, and was not a part of design, planning or training of US boats.
As such US subs needed high cruising speed, and therefore a longer length, to keep up with even fast battleships and carriers, and at least a 6 torpedo tube \'broadside\', which was what was calculated as necessary to sink a modern, armored battleship. The need for better habitability and more spares also forced a larger design - the old S boats were notoriously miserable in the tropical heat of the Pacific. Problems in developing a good, light diesel engine forces the US to use four engines, instead of the two in Type VII\'s, further increasing required volume. These factors combined to dictate a large design in US boats.
Shipbuilding resources had nothing to do with it.
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Frank Blazich | 05/02/2001 02:43AM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Visje | 05/02/2001 09:09AM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
AL Wellman | 05/03/2001 02:21AM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Frank Blazich | 05/03/2001 02:34AM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
AL Wellman | 05/03/2001 05:37PM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Joe Brennan | 05/03/2001 06:09AM |
|
Treaty yes, Versailles no
|
SuperKraut | 05/03/2001 09:50AM |
|
RE: Treaty yes, Versailles no
|
Joe Brennan | 05/04/2001 02:31AM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
kurt | 05/03/2001 08:20PM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Rainer Bruns | 05/03/2001 10:31PM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
kurt | 05/04/2001 03:31PM |
|
RE: Why were the U-boats so small?
|
Rainer Bruns | 05/04/2001 05:30PM |