Most effective WW II submarine force?

This isn't the quiz section but there are some well informed people on naval subjects who post in this section.
I would ask this: Which WW II submarine force do you think was the most effective in regard to tonnage of ships sunk per sub lost and number of ships sunk per sub lost?

ps..the answers will surprise some people, no doubt.

 

The American Navy of course, why else would you ask?

US Navy Submarines sunk 5 million tonnes of Japanese vessels, with 53 submarines lost (again, I emphasise Japanese vessels)

German U-boats sunk over 20 million tonnes by with a loss of 637 vessels,

meaning that pound for pound, the Germans were less efficient!

 

Or that Allied ASW measures were more efficient...

 

Exactly my point Simonr,

Japanese anti-submarine-warfare was dismal by comparison...

This article sums up the issue in a nutshel

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleof ... einWo.html

 

did japan every employ convoys?

 

Of course it's true the US subs took much fewer losses than any other nation.
One can think that is entirely due to the ineptness of the IJN if they so choose. But then I'm pretty sure that those who would think that are the same people that say that the USN was just lucky at Midway or Leyte Gulf or that the Marines were so successful because they fought inferior troops.

This fact remains no matter how you spin it; The US submarine service is the only sub service that played a major role in the defeat of the enemy. Japan was defeated due in large part to the US submarine campaign against her shipping.
I bring this up only because it is apparent that many of those who like to talk subs seem overly infatuated with the German U-boats.

Of course as the quote states the IJN anti sub defenses were not the equal of the Allied defenses but then that is true of the Allies airforces, the Allies navies, and the allies industrial production.
I don't think that a level playing field is something that should be striven for in war...we aren't talking football, after all.
Just as the Allies that invaded Europe were facing German Heer forces that were mere shells of what they had been 4 years earlier.
c'est la guerre.

Judging the comparative effectiveness of forces that never faced each other in battle is pure speculation, nothing more.
The forces that fought against each other are a bit easier to rate in effectiveness and the results are relevant to reality.

 

The over-infatuation with WW2 German forces doesn't stop at U-boats

Any statistics on whether USN submarines were deployed in the European or Mediterranean thatres or how well they performed? That article seems to infer that USN submarines only ever saw any combat in the Pacific...

 

Soon after the entry of the US into the war, it was decided that the USN
would concentrate its submarine forces in the Pacific, while the RN submarine forces would concentrate on the ETO and MTO.
Part of this decision was the fact that USN submarines were too large to operate successfully in the shallow waters around Europe and the Med, the smaller RN boats being more suited to this role.
Interestingly, if the success of a submarine fleet is decided on the tonnage of shipping sunk per submarine loss, the top 3 are,
1) USN (101,923 tons per loss)
2) RN (20,266 tons)
3) German Navy (15,565 tons)

 

I'd like to know how Mackerel and Marlen would have done in European waters. The design was considered very good but unsuited to American needs. The boats were a touch larger than the British "S" class.

 

Any force - naval, army, or air - is only as good as its opponents allow it to be (the same applies in sport, incidentally - a team which looks wonderful against one opponent can be taken apart by a better one). It is a fact that the Japanese anti-submarine measures were vastly inferior to the Allied ones, and that had a huge impact on the effectiveness of the submarine forces.

Whether the American submarine force was better or worse than the German one, in terms of its capabilities against equal opponents, is impossible to say; each optimised its equipment and tactics to suit its particular environments.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

What about the Japanese subs? Does anybody have some info on them? They did well in the first months of the pacific war and were used to supply and evacuate cut of islands.

 

I agree with the idea that it is impossible to compare units that were not adversaries. That leaves us with the ability to compare forces that were adversaries. That can be quantified and that is what this post is about.

I'm curious. What specifically leads you (and others) to state that the IJN ASW measures were "vastly inferior" to the Allies? Of course there was a difference in the size of the forces, at least by late war, and the technology of radar and sonar was superior, again by late war, but the IJN escorts were numerous and well trained
To what do you attribute the statistically lower effectiveness of the British and Russian sub forces. Were the German ASW measures vastly superior to the IJN also?

ps.. It's kinda silly to indulge in the "what if" US subs were subjected to the Allied ASW. The US was an important component in that Allied ASW effort.
US subs trained with US ASW forces and were opponents in training exercises. Would it have been tougher to face allied ASW forces?
Of course but it's a bit of apples and oranges. The Germans also had 4 times as many subs as the US, lesser distances to patrol, and a more target rich environment. Early war the German U-boats had little or no effective opposition and the sinking numbers reflect the difference between early war and late war when the Allies had air coverage across the entire Atlantic and huge numbers of well trained escorts.

 

They may have been well trained in the art of combat against other surface warships, but at the beginning of the war and until quite late on in the war, their training in ASW was very poor, and IJN was extremely slow to put into effect any sort of convoy system. The IJN may have had enough fleet destroyers to escort their naval forces, but the number of escort vessels they needed to set up an effective convoy system was totally lacking

German and Italian ASW was better than the Japanese, but a majority of the losses for both the British and Russian sub fleets was caused by the fact they operated in shallow waters, and so were vulnerable to defensive minefields

 

The Japanese submarine force was a flop.

 

The Dutch Navy....
Totals Submarines Lost. 8 Total Tonnage sunk 168,183
Tonnage sunk per Dutch Submarine Lost in WW2 is 22,022 tons.
Total ships sunk 69.

 

As I understand it the primary problem was doctrinal. Japanese subs were directed to sink warships first and foremost rather than directing their efforts against merchant shipping or logistical supply ships.

 

The IJN submarines themselves were not bad designs, though they were extremely large targets. Obviously their torpedoes were good. The Germans had a poor impression of shipboard discipline, and the American had a poor impression of habitability (this from postwar, so maybe not as applicable).
In the first year of the war, IJN subs sank the carrier Wasp and finished off the carrier Yorktown. They damaged the battleship North Carolina and the carrier Saratoga (twice). If we see this as a successful effort pursuant to the intended role of attrition before the Decisive Battle, we're left having to admit the intended role was fundamentally flawed. However, I don't think I can even go that far.

 

The use of the Japanese subs as supply ships for cut-off garrisons did much to diminish their effectiveness. This showed, IMHO, incredible short sightedness on the part of the IJN high command, especially given their obsession with the offensive.

 

The best WW2 submarine force ?

Most of us, myself included, have a lot of respect for the German U-boat service, which throughout the war employed progressively better craft fitted with advanced technological devices ( peroxide powered engines, schnorkel etc. ). Having said that, I believe that I am correct in stating that the kill rate of Royal Navy submarines against the Kriegsmarine U-boats was at least two to one, if not better !
BG

 

Re: The best WW2 submarine force ?

Such a claim would be next to impossible to verify (or dispute). Submarine versus submarine combat was rare in WW II and the reasons for losses were often not clear. Subs failed to return and were assumed lost and the method of their demise was often not known, even after the war.