Top Ten WWII Submarines?

[Crusader2000]

I was wondering what were the Top Ten Submarines of WWII. Including both Allied and Axis by tonnage and/or ships sunk..............does anyone know?

 

[KGB]

Not by tonnage, but by fame; the VIIb Uboat. There were only 2 dozen of them but they were the ones that were used during the "Happy Time" when the Uboats were most successfull. Prien raided the royal navy's base in Scapa flow with it, and Kretchmer became the leading submariner by tonnage sank in one.

 

[Crusader2000]

Not by tonnage, but by fame; the VIIb Uboat. There were only 2 dozen of them but they were the ones that were used during the "Happy Time" when the Uboats were most successfull. Prien raided the royal navy's base in Scapa flow with it, and Kretchmer became the leading submariner by tonnage sank in one.

Well, I was wonder how other Navies did in Submarine Warfare. As Germany gets all of the attention..............

 

[Tasman]

Well, I was wonder how other Navies did in Submarine Warfare. As Germany gets all of the attention..............

According to Ahoy - Mac's Web Log, the USN submarine arm was remarkably effective. Overall German submarines sank the biggest tonnage but USN subs sank the greatest tonnage for each submarine lost. The USN lost 52 submarines but averaged 23 ships and 101,923 tons for each loss. German U-Boat crews paid a huge price with 781 U-Boats being lost for an average of 3.6 ships and 18,565 tons per loss. Of 40,600 officers and men involved in the German U-Boat fleet, 30,246 died, and another 5,338 were taken as prisoners of war.

The three leading countries based on tonnage sunk by submarines were:

Germany - 2,828 ships - 14.5 million tons
USA - 1,314 ships - 5.2 million tons
UK - 697 ships - 1.52 million tons

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

Cheers

 

[Crusader2000]

According to Ahoy - Mac's Web Log, the USN submarine arm was remarkably effective. Overall German submarines sank the biggest tonnage but USN subs sank the greatest tonnage for each submarine lost. The USN lost 52 submarines but averaged 23 ships and 101,923 tons for each loss. German U-Boat crews paid a huge price with 781 U-Boats being lost for an average of 3.6 ships and 18,565 tons per loss. Of 40,600 officers and men involved in the German U-Boat fleet, 30,246 died, and another 5,338 were taken as prisoners of war.

The three leading countries based on tonnage sunk by submarines were:

Germany - 2,828 ships - 14.5 million tons
USA - 1,314 ships - 5.2 million tons
UK - 697 ships - 1.52 million tons

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

Cheers

Thanks the information it was helpful. Yet, I was trying to find a Sub by Sub account. (i.e. Ships/Tonnage Sunk).............Really, trying to figure the Top Ten Most Successful Subs of WWII.......regardless of nationality.

 

[walle]

“Off topic”

Not by tonnage nor by fame, but as a revolutionary and engineering masterpiece…Type XXI (elektroboote). The first true submarine, able to stay submerged for 11 days at a time, and with a maximum crash depth of 280 meters. A 120 were produced, thou only two entered operational status at the very end of the war. (sunk no chips by the way)

According to Ahoy - Mac's Web Log, the USN submarine arm was remarkably effective. Overall German submarines sank the biggest tonnage but USN subs sank the greatest tonnage for each submarine lost.

True, but keep in mind that they were not hunted by the largest Navy in the world, which would explain their effectiveness. The German tactics of wolf pack formations (whilst initially very effective) proved later in the war to be highly infective, and causing them to loose even more U-boats. The British invention of both radar and sonar turned the wolf packs into easy pray. That said; this is not pointed out as to dismiss the skill of their American counterparts, but they operated under totally different premises.

The three leading countries based on tonnage sunk by submarines were:

Despite the numbers used as a measuring stick, I would rate the US navy as the most effective one given that the tonnage sunk by them, had a much larger impact then the tonnage sunk by the German Kriegsmarine. It may sound bonkers (sue me).But whereas America and Britain had the capability to replace lost tonnage, the Japanese could not; therefore tonnage sunk by the Americans had a larger impact then tonnage sunk by the German kriegsmarine, thus in that respect; more effective.

 

[Todjaeger]

Despite the numbers used as a measuring stick, I would rate the US navy as the most effective one given that the tonnage sunk by them, had a much larger impact then the tonnage sunk by the German Kriegsmarine. It may sound bonkers (sue me).But whereas America and Britain had the capability to replace lost tonnage, the Japanese could not; therefore tonnage sunk by the Americans had a larger impact then tonnage sunk by the German kriegsmarine, thus in that respect; more effective.

Agreed. Another thing to keep in mind regarding the disparity in tonnages sunk by subs during WWI. The total numbers of subs that entered service by the different navies, as well as the size (and use) of the respective merchant marines. Once WWII was well underway, I don't believe there was a sizeable German merchant fleet, and a ship can't be sunk until it's been launched.

Otherwise, I'll see if I can come up with the names of specific vessels.

-Cheers

 

[Crusader2000]

Don't forget that US Subs also had major problems with there early torpedos.......So, the first 12-18 months they weren't to effective!

 

[Tasman]

Thanks the information it was helpful. Yet, I was trying to find a Sub by Sub account. (i.e. Ships/Tonnage Sunk).............Really, trying to figure the Top Ten Most Successful Subs of WWII.......regardless of nationality.

A link to German U-Boat victories can be found here:

http://www.uboataces.com/articles-successful-attack.shtml

The most successful German U-Boat was U-48 which sank 52 ships totalling 308,000 tons.


Here is a link that lists the successful USN submarines in WW2:

http://www.valoratsea.com/TonxSub.htm

USS Tautog sunk 26 ships totalling 72,606 tons.

In terms of tonnage the most successful was USS Flasher which sank 21 ships totalling 100, 231tons.

However, I found another source that suggests USS Barb sank more than Flasher, based on recently released Japanese information.

http://www.commercemarketplace.com/home/CollectAir/submarine.html

Re British submarines I believe that Upholder sank 135,000 tons and Turbulent sank approx 90,000 tons but I haven't been able to find a detailed list.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2558


Cheers

 

[riksavage]

Looking at the otherside of the coin, who were the top submarine killers in WWII, and using what methods, for example:

Seaplane using bombs?
Covettes / destroyers using depth-chargers?
Submarine vs. submarine?

 

[KGB]

Majority of the U boat losses were to aircraft; they were the number 1 killers.
Allies could spot them with radar too quickly for the Uboat to dive.

ww2 sub statistics are found here
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

The American Submarine Operational History concedes: "It would do well for all Submariners to humbly ponder the fact that Japanese Anti-Submarine defences were not the best. If our Submarines had been confronted with Allied Anti-Submarine measures, the casuality list of the Submarine force would have been much larger, and the accomplishment of Allied Submarines less impressive."

Put it this way, the USN could afford to install showers and other creature comforts in their boats while entire Uboat crews had to share a single head in order to get the most out of their boats.

 

[riksavage]

Apparently the following character holds the Allied record for sinking U-Boats.

Captain Frederic John Walker, CB, DSO and three Bars, RN (3 June 1896 – 9 July 1944) Unfortunately he died of a heart attack on the deck of his own ship. Pretty ironic that he died form natural causes, the stress must have finally got to him!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_John_Walker

 

[riksavage]

My mistake, Walker died of a stroke at 48, and not on his ship.

Sank a total of 20 U-Boats, pretty impressive tally.

What was the average crew of a U-boat?

 

[Tasman]

My mistake, Walker died of a stroke at 48, and not on his ship.

Sank a total of 20 U-Boats, pretty impressive tally.

What was the average crew of a U-boat?

Crew size ranged from 44 - 48 in a typical medium sized Type VII boat, 48 -57 in the larger ocean going boats and less than 25 in coastal submarines.

Source: German Warships of World War II, J.C. Taylor, Ian Allan, London, 1968

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

“Off topic”

True, but keep in mind that they were not hunted by the largest Navy in the world, which would explain their effectiveness. The German tactics of wolf pack formations (whilst initially very effective) proved later in the war to be highly infective, and causing them to loose even more U-boats. The British invention of both radar and sonar turned the wolf packs into easy pray. That said; this is not pointed out as to dismiss the skill of their American counterparts, but they operated under totally different premises.

.

A few clarifications.... Sonar (ASDIC) was in place before the war began but could not guage depth at that stage.

HF/DF was as critical (if not more) on surface ships for breaking up wolf packs as these had to transmit.

VLR aircraft and escort carriers really nade things difficult, particularly with centimetric radar.

 

[alexsa]

Don't forget that US Subs also had major problems with there early torpedos.......So, the first 12-18 months they weren't to effective!

So did the Germans

 

[walle]

A few clarifications.... Sonar (ASDIC) was in place before the war began but could not guage depth at that stage.

I suppose I could have been more precise in my post. That said; despite sonar being invented earlier, it took time for it to “mature” as well as be fielded on the majority of vessels, thus making an impact. An invention tends to be invented “twice”.

HF/DF was as critical (if not more) on surface ships for breaking up wolf packs as these had to transmit.

Yes, undoubtedly so, add to that more effective destruction methods, such as Hedgehog and Limbo.

VLR aircraft and escort carriers really nade things difficult, particularly with centimetric radar.

Yes, though I would say that the boats did more so, than the aircrafts since they lacked the range (though range was later improved)

 

[KGB]

Lots of Uboats were sunk by aircraft while on their way in and out of their bases; hence the radar detector they had was called the "Biscay Cross"; that's where they needed it.

 

[doug9694]

Actual military targets

Has anyone done a report an military actions only and not defenceless: gun freighters, tankers, Junks, sail boats and such?

 

[SteelTiger 177]

The best subamrines for the U.S.Navy would have to be the Gato-class boats they had very good range for oberating in the pacific it's only sub to come close would be the type 9 U-Boats which in someways are identical in apperance.The Britsh V-class subs were very good operating in both in the Med and the Pacific and it also did as much against the U-boats as the DDs and DDEs.