[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
So why were US subs so much more successful...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 94
Thread images: 9
So why were US subs so much more successful than the Krauts at blockading and starving out an island nation?

Was it anything different they did doctrine-wise, or could the Japs just not into anti-submarine warfare?
>>
>>28710497

The Japs had no effective convoy system. Of course they would be decimated.
>>
>>28710497
Lend-Lease saved the Brits' asses, as much as they hate to admit it. After Dunkirk they had no guns, no ammo, next to no way to fight back. After the Blitz they were running out of food, and basic necessities. So, enter America with a shiny new Atlantic fleet and the largest mercantile fleet at the time, positively bursting at the seems with resources to send to Dear Old Mummy England.
>>
>>28710633

As with Canada. The Brits got lucky.
>>
>>28710974
>got lucky
Relying on it's colonies/commonwealth nations/anglicized nations has been an essential part of the UK's national defense for the past three centuries. Naturally, this means they are overshadowed by their progeny, but at least it ensures that an attack on Britain is an attack is on the entirety of Western Civilization.
>>
American industry could build more ships and replace losses faster
>>
>>28710633
Well, the English went anti-gun and then foolishly sold all their guns to Germany, couple years later it really bit them hard in the ass.
>>
>>28710497
Because US subs didn't have to deal with enemy surface navy and aircraft.
>>
File: file.jpg (981 KB, 900x1364) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
file.jpg
981 KB, 900x1364
>>28710497
Japs had no anti sub measures to speak of.
Germany had a navy, but America's logistics system beat it every which way, and American subs could count on support from any number of ACCs, BBs, DDs ext while the Germans were just kind of alone.
And of course Americans are just so great.
>>
>>28710633
>After Dunkirk they had no guns, no ammo, next to no way to fight back.
They had some guns, some ammo. But it was not an issue because the Germans had next to no way to get to the island.

>After the Blitz they were running out of food, and basic necessities.
Britain was never running out food or basic necessities.

>So, enter America with a shiny new Atlantic fleet
The Atlantic fleet was mostly of WW1 vintage.

> positively bursting at the seems with resources to send to Dear Old Mummy England.
American resources were already going to Britain. It never stopped going, as Britain was buying so much shit from America to the point of wasting their entire gold reserves, in the 1st 2 years of the war.
>>
>>28711421
Not only that, but American subs were significantly more sophisticated at the beginning of the war, where as the Kreigsmarine made their strides later on. The German U-boats were similar to that the US was building at the end of WWI, where the USN was constantly prototyping and deploying more advanced fleet boats throughout the 1930's-40's.
>>
>>28711462
This. I've been aboard the USS Drum as well as the U-505, and there is a world of difference in regards to the technological advancement of the two boats. The 505 was a cramped, dark hellhole, while the Drum was spacious, well-lit, and generally gave off a more advanced vibe.
>>
>>28711458
Well, hullo there, ungrateful Britbong!
>>
Japan REALLY sucked at anti-submarine warfare. Not only did they have doctrinal issues, took forever to start using convoys and such, but they also had no resources for making escorts whatsoever. Canada alone produced more then twice as many dedicated ASW warships than Japan made surface combatants of all types. Even if you add in the ships Japan entered the war with it does not look that much better, Japan fielding a total of 259 surface combatants of all types to Canada's 212 (not counting those given transferred from the RN). Aircraft are a similar story with Japan lacking the ability to outfit a true counterpart to the UKs Coastal Command with expensive four engine planes.

Let that sink in for a moment, Canada, a nation you never think of as a naval power, deployed over 200 vessels almost exclusively tasked with convoy protection. Japan had just 47 more hulls to protect the shipping lanes of its new found empire as well as fight a war against the USN. Given the numbers the success of the US sub fleet was a given.
>>
>>28711591
The only major weakness the US had was that our torpedoes kinda sucked for a while. Jap long lance torps were some nasty jokers, but their sub doctrine sucked worse than their convoy OP's, so it balanced out.
>>
>>28710497
because:
the nips were retarded when it came to subs
the krauts had their codes broken and the brits got pretty good at anti sub, not to mention the sheer volume crossing the North Atlantic and the large number of armed escorts
>>
>>28711628
>Jap long lance torps were some nasty jokers, but their sub doctrine sucke
Yeah, and the fact that Jap subs didn't use long lance torps also balanced things out.
>>
>>28711591
>deployed over 200 whaling boats with a gun and some depth charge throwers slapped on it
Still don't think of it as a naval power.
>>
File: Somebody Farted.jpg (182 KB, 800x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Somebody Farted.jpg
182 KB, 800x600
>>28711729
The casualty rate of U-boat sailors begs to differ, friendo.
>>
File: flower.jpg (42 KB, 799x493) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
flower.jpg
42 KB, 799x493
>>28711748
Of course providing escort was a very helpful and in fact crucial thing for a non-naval power to do.
KanColle should come out with a Flower corvette Kanmusu.
>>
>>28711777
But this brings us to a very important question. What would Flower-chan look like?
>>
>>28711799
A hippie because she believes in FLOWER POWER!
>>
>>28711777

It was the escort carriers more than anything that shut down the Uboat fleet.

Escorts could catch subs when they were on final approach or waiting for the convoy, ASW planes caught the subs when they were surfaced and trying to get in position.

>>28711458
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Standard_rationing_during_World_War_II

> We had so much food in the UK that we had to ration food from 1939 to 1954
> Didn't need that lend-lease anyways
>>
>>28713309
Britain did not ration food during war time. Britain rationed luxury foodstuff, like chocolate, tea, meat, sugar, butter. Staples like bread and vegetables were not rationed.
There was rationing in post-war Britain but it was more of a solidarity measure with the rest of Europe. Britain gave food aid to Europe, and its citizens were asked to go on a ration to make that possible.
Next time read the articles you link to, and you'll look like less of a moron.
>>
>>28710555
>>28711421
>>28711591

Essentially this, for an island nation who really looked up to Great Britain in all matter involving naval warfare, the Japs really dropped the ball on learning from the mistakes Brits did in WW1, and had done in WW2 so far regarding ASW and convoys. I guess it was that "Ghost of Tsushima" biting them in the ass again, with destroyer captains and their superiors considering convoy duty not HONORABU enough when they could be making daring torpedo attacks on Allied warships in a Decisive Battle elsewhere. Eventually they did learn to do ASW and convoys, but it was too little, too late.

>>28711628
>The only major weakness the US had was that our torpedoes kinda sucked for a while.

Saying that they "kinda sucked" is being pretty generous to the shitshow that was the early-war Mark 14 torpedo.
>>
>>28713309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_States

>We had so much in the US that we didn't need to ration
>>
>>28713434
It was not a matter of not wanting to do ASW work as Japan did not have the luxury of dedicating hundreds of small vessels to escort a large convoy of merchants. Because the USN, unlike Germany, could simply send cruisers to destroy the entire convoy and the escorts as a bonus.
>>
>>28713447
Pretty much this, its easy to forget how absurdly many ships you need to do convoy protection. At a minimum for a convoy to work you need enough escorts to simultaneously
- Render aid to a struck vessel
- Attack the submarine that launched the attack
- Remain with the convoy in event another sub in in the area.

That is a bare minimum of three ships per convoy. Add in maintenance, demands for destroyers to do other tasks as well as losses and you start needed a ton of ships. The Flower class was an excellent solution to the problem, it could keep up with the convoys, was armed enough to take on the U-boats, had sonar and later radar and was far cheaper then destroyer.
>>
>>28713447

I was being a bit hyperbolic there, but the Japanese definitely did feel some aversion towards dedicating more of their resources towards ASW simply because they wanted the war to be over quickly, and not involve any protracted submarine/anti-submarine warfare. Of course, by the time they realized that they had one in their hands, it was mostly too late to do anything.
>>
>>28710497
It was no one thing but a combination of reasons that made them successful. One of the major reasons was the breaking of the "Purple" encryption method used by the Japanese.
>>
>>28713576
I'm pretty sure of the many things that made US commerce raiding successful, breaking the diplomatic code was way down on the list.
>>
File: 3VufGGd.jpg (179 KB, 601x901) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
3VufGGd.jpg
179 KB, 601x901
Here's a good example of the Mark 14 at its absolute worst. At least in this case one of the torpedos didn't run in a circle and sink the sub that launched it, like apparently happened to USS Tullibee.
>>
>>28713586
You'd think by the 8th torpedo they'd have figured out it wasn't working.
>>
>>28713598

On one hand, yeah, but on the other hand, it's a fucking 19,000 ton tanker. Gato-class subs carried 24 torpedos, and I bet that if that destroyer hadn't shown up, the skipper of the Tinosa would have kept firing until he was out of torpedos, or until his tears blurred the periscope, which ever happened first.
>>
>>28710555
Also all merchant shipping was placed under IJA logistics control.


And they had no fucking clue what they were doing, ex. Ships would re-port while caring nothing, etc.
>>
>>28712938
A defective, kinda fugly slim grill
>>
>>28711050
i'm way late in replying, but well said m8
>>
>>28711244
This might just be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
>>
There are two questions here- why did the KM lose and USN win?
There are a number of crucial differences in USN and KM submarine design.
One was the USN's excellent fire control system; the TDC (torpedo data computer) which was one of the best weapon control systems of the war.
Radar. USN subs from late 42 on all had surface search and air search radar.
Poor Japanese intelligence and commitment to ASW. The IJN lagged far behind the other belligerents in development of their ASW capability. The RN, USN and RCN made extensive use of a myriad of technological improvements (radar, radio directional finding, ULTRA) to give them an edge over the U-Boats.
Command and Control: The KM relied heavily upon radio control of large #'s of U-Boats in Rudeltaktik (wolf pack tactics) and once their codes were compromised the Atlantic battle was pretty much an Allied win as the U-Boats lost their freedom of surface maneuverability.
The RN approached ASW as a life or death strategy. The IJN put all of it's efforts into CV's and ridiculous super BB's like the Yamato.
Once the USN torpedo issues were sorted out (Sept. 43) the losses of the IJN merchant fleet rose far above replacement production.
Lastly: innovation. There is a vast difference in the capabilities of the USN Submarines that were launched; compare the early fleet boats to the Balao class boats of the latter part of the war, whereas the Germans stayed with two sub types through most of the battle of the atlantic; the type VII and IX. The XXI was clearly the best sub of the war, but was far too complex and far too late in the development. The failure of the KM to utilize any kind of air search radar severely limited their operational effectiveness.
>>
>>28713655
>Also all merchant shipping was placed under IJA logistics control.
No it fucking wasn't.
>>
>>28711552
>Ungrateful
He literally says Britain was depending on American resources from the start of the war.
>>
>>28710497
Because, like many other situations,the Japanese were fucking retarded and misallocated what few resources they had
>>
>>28715913
>He literally says Britain was depending on American resources from the start of the war.
And they didn't? Seriously, read some British op eds in the New York Times from the early war. The Brits were begging for help, they were out of everything.
>>
>>28714473

The main reason is that the Kriegsmarine Uboat force had to fight the USN+Royal Navy ASW force, while the USN Sub fleet only had to fight the IJN ASW force.

If USN subs fought USN ASW they would get creamed.
>>
>>28713637
>or until his tears blurred the periscope
kek
>>
>>28718526
>he says britain depended on american resources
>WHAT THE FUCK YOU DONT THINK THEY DEPENDED ON AMERICA? READ THE OP EDS REEEEEE
>>
>>28713341
>Staples like bread and vegetables were not rationed.
>"... On 8 January 1940, bacon, butter and sugar were rationed. This was followed by successive ration schemes for meat, tea, jam, biscuits, breakfast cereals, cheese, eggs, lard, milk and canned and dried fruit."
>no true Scotsman...

Rationing is rationing. Get over it. I challenge you to find an Englishman who does not consider tea a staple!
>>
>>28720285
>Rationing is rationing. Get over it.
What exactly are you trying to say, that because tea and jam were rationed, Britain was on the verge of dying of starvation?
>>
>>28710497
It's kind of ironic that the Japs didn't do more with submarines because their oxygen torpedoes had more range than everyone else's torpedoes. Hell, we Americans thought we were caught in mine fields or under attacks from midget subs. Never thought we were being torpedoed from 15-20 kms out.

'course, oxygen torpedoes had a nasty habit of exploding when shot...
>>
>>28720409
>It's kind of ironic that the Japs didn't do more with submarines because their oxygen torpedoes had more range than everyone else's torpedoes.
Japs didn't use oxygen torpedoes on their subs.
>>
>>28720354
No, I'm trying to say that pulling the "no true Scotsman" fallacy every time someone tells you that your statements of...
>Britain was never running out food...
>Britain did not ration food during war time...
...is really fucking stupid.

I'm not saying the Brits were 100% fucked, but it's undeniably that they were in a crisis and that they DID ration food you fuckwit.
>>
>>28720462
u.s. rationed food too. along with myriad other items as well.
>>
>>28720501
Yes, we did. I'm glad you came to terms with how fucking wrong you are, ya twat.
>>
>>28720462
They were not in a crisis as to food. The crisis was the war, and of course the citizens were expected to live more modestly. This included eating less luxuriously than in peacetime. But you are literally trying to argue that having to live on a ration of jam meant they were starving. You honestly, seriously, unironically cannot see why you are retarded?
Because they were forced to eat more veggies and whole grains, it turns out Brits never ate so well before or since under rationing in WW2.
>>
>>28713586
>jump clear of the water about one hundred feet from the stern of the tanker
>I find it hard to convince myself that I saw this
top kek
>>
>>28720534
So US had a food crisis and Americans were starving?
>>
>>28720565
That's not the point of the argument you stupid shit. You said the UK didn't ration. You were wrong. End of story. Fuck off.
>>
>>28714470
I wondered about it too, but then yes, GB indeed was into pacifism and disarmament when Hitler was already in full armament mode...
>>
>>28720611
No, the argument is whether Britain was running out of food and basic necessities. Literally no one denied that they rationed some things. Yet you for some reason are raging and butthurt that non-existent claims against British rationing has been made. Why?
>>
>>28720716
>GB indeed was into pacifism and disarmament when Hitler was already in full armament mode...
Britain was already spending close to 10% of GDP on the military in late 30s, before the war started. Everyone knew a war was coming.
>>
>>28713341
>Britain did not ration food during war time.

>>28720721
>Literally no one denied that they rationed some things.

Liar.
>>
Make way for Gato class.
>>
>>28720747
>Britain was already spending close to 10% of GDP on the military in late 30s, before the war started. Everyone knew a war was coming.

not everyone was knowing it e.g. Chamberlain. Having the GDP figure alone does not mean much, Germany in 1934 spent 5% of its GDP on armament. But it was 39.3% of the national budget (4.2 billion RM).
>>
>>28710497
I have a question:

What the fuck is pig iron and Manganese ore used for?

I read a u-boat book and that is what was always getting sunk. 80% of supply ships always had manganese ore aboard for some reason.
>>
>>28720829
To make manga
>>
>>28720829
to harden steel, make armour plates
>>
>>28710633
>So, enter America with a shiny new Atlantic fleet

Atlantic fleet that was led by retard and it's best ships were sent to Pacific. Admiral King refused to order coastal blackout, insisted that shipping will keep their navigation lights on and refused to set up convoy on US east coast. US Navy in general wasn't really experienced in anti-submarine operations. First result of US entry to war was part of battle of Atlantic known by Germans as 2nd happy time. Basically Open Season on US eastern seaboard.

>and the largest mercantile fleet at the time,

The thing how US beat Germans was simple, industry. They could produce more Liberty ships than Germans could produce torpedoes.
>>
>>28713586
Reminds me of how the KM had a similar issue with their magnetic fuses earlier in the war with the G7a and later the G7e to the point where Admiral Dönitz said, "never before in military history has a force been sent into battle with such a useless weapon."
>>
>jap jap jap jap

Why don't you scum show some respect to the people who designed AND own this website?
>>
>>28720761
Thank you friend. Glad I'm not the only one to pick up this fuckery.
>>
>>28713341
>Britain did not ration food during war time. Britain rationed luxury foodstuff, like chocolate, tea, meat, sugar, butter. Staples like bread and vegetables were not rationed.
>Next time read the articles you link to, and you'll look like less of a moron.

Posts list of rationed food, claim no food rationing occurred. Eggs and meat as sources of protein are luxuries? Everyone was growing victory gardens, but I wouldn't call an abundance of zuccini a viable long term food source strategy. Churchill himself later wrote that the UK was only a month away from having to surrender due to the effects of the blockade. The fact that wheat wasn't rationed doesn't mean that Britain wasn't hurting, just that they hadn't yet reached starvation mode.

A Staple also means:
a : a commodity for which the demand is constant
b : something having widespread and constant use or appeal

Last I looked meat is traded as a commodity and has widespread appeal.

Next time use a dictionary for words you use, and you'll look like less of a moron.

I'm not even that guy.
>>
>>28720817
Some revisionists argue Chamberlain knew what was coming and used appeasement to buy time in order to buy material. We'll never know what he was thinking 100%.
>>
>>28713586
I remember seeing a documentary on this where the Ordinance Department was insisting that there was nothing wrong with the Mk14 and was threatening to charge sub crews with treason for saying there was.
>>
>>28721159
Navy hates admitting that their torpedoes are fucked.

Wasn't the last time, either. See: Mk 37
>>
>>28720428
...Seriously? Why the hell not?! It's like the one advantage Japan had that nobody else did. The US didn't even believe that they could have that range until they occupied Japan and could take one apart.
>>
>>28721135
>Some revisionists argue Chamberlain knew what was coming and used appeasement to buy time in order to buy material. We'll never know what he was thinking 100%.

There is truth in it, after Munich he still pursued the appeasement policy but accelerated rearmament. But even as late as August 1939 there was a British loan offer to Germany in exchange for peace.
>>
>>28721241
Some subs used them, but a torpedo that goes faster and goes farther still has all the drawbacks of a torpedo. And shooting it from farther away only magnifies them.
>>
>>28720354
Actually Churchill himself wrote that the UK was on the verge of surrender due to imminent malnutrition. Read "The Second World War" by Winston Churchill.
>>
>>28720959
Armor plates that won't shatter anyway. Late war German armor had a horrible tendency to shatter when struck by allied shells because they didn't have the supplies to harden the armor anymore.
>>
File: Panther Wrack.jpg (107 KB, 799x486) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Panther Wrack.jpg
107 KB, 799x486
>>28721519
exactly, the steel became brittle
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/
>>
>>28721087
>Next time use a dictionary for words you use, and you'll look like less of a moron.
You might want to take your own advice and look up what staple food means, instead of inventing your own meaning.
>>
>>28720716
Even if we pretend Chamberlain was a bumbling idiot and that nobody opposed him, such foolish pacifist moves would be almost completely unrelated to UK firearms laws.
>>
>>287207612
Thank you, Anon!
>>
>>28721490
Churchill is prone to hyperbole in his writings and "The Second World War" is full of errors. While Britain did suffer local shortages and certain products did disappear during the war starvation was never a serious threat, in fact due control of the food supply system being handed over to nutritionists the average British worker actually had a better diet during the war then before. For an excellent look at the food situation of all nations including Britain I recommend "The Taste of War" by Lizze Collingham.
>>
>>28721070
A simple abbreviation is not always intended as an insult. Jap wasn't necessarily used as an insult the way Nip was, which is also an abbreviation of Nippon. Since most users are American, why don't you complain about the use of Muricans?
>>
>>28721720
>You might want to take your own advice and look up what staple food means, instead of inventing your own meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/staple

Quote take from one of the most authoritative dictionaries in the world. Take your own advice moron.
>>
File: U-155 deck gun.jpg (70 KB, 800x540) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
U-155 deck gun.jpg
70 KB, 800x540
>>28721734
look, you should not take any troll that seriously, what should trigger one more is UK firearms laws is not put in quotation marks, there s no need to qualify any codified private opinion as something legal...
>>
>>28711421
FYI, aircraft carriers are abbreviated as CV
>>
>>28710633
>Lend-Lease saved the Brits' asses

>Dunkirk
>1940
>Blitz
>1940

>Lend Lease
>Began October 1941

I think you need to learn your history. According to you the UK ran out of food and ammunition a year before Lend Lease started. You know, during this period of no supplies and starvation when they were sinking the German and Italian navies and destroying the Luftwaffe.
>>
>>28721070
Jap here, fuck off subhuman
>>
>>28710974
Read Corvette Navy sometime.
>>
>>28720829
Pig iron is the first stage in refining iron ore into steel. It would have most likely been pig iron ingots going to a smelter where it would be further refined and then shaped into useful parts.
>>
>>28711462
I would disagree with this entirely.
>>
>>28720778
Interesting tower profile, seems a little large though.
Thread replies: 94
Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 476759



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.