The Submarine war WW2 , balance sheet

Results Achieved by Submarine Fleets versus their losses in World War 2

1. USA, total no of subs lost 52, total tonnage sunk 5.2m, total number sunk 1314, number of ships sunk per loss= 23, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 101,923tons.

2. UK, total no of subs lost 75, total tonnage sunk 1.52m, total number sunk 697, number of ships sunk per loss= 9.3, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 20.266tons

3. Germany, total no of subs lost 781, total tonnage sunk 14.5m, total number sunk 2,828, number of ships sunk per loss= 3.6, tonnage of ships sunk per loss=18,565tons

4. Italy,total no of subs lost 82, total tonnage sunk 1.0m, total number sunk n/a, number of ships sunk per loss n/a, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 12,195 tons

5. Japan, total no of subs lost 127, total tonnage sunk 0.907m, total number sunk 184, number of ships sunk per loss= 1.4, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 6,923tons

6. Russia, total no of subs lost 109, total tonnage sunk 0.402m, total number sunk 160, number of ships sunk per loss= 1.5, tonnage of ships sunk per loss= 3,692tons

Hope you find this of interest

[ 06. May 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: redcoat ]

 

Its a worthwhile comparison Redcoat, however it does not take into account the operational areas and defensive measures likely to be met in each area.

Convoy protection and air protection in say the North Atlantic by the allies taking a toll on German Uboats, cannot be compared to the actions of similar submarine actions in say the Pacific against the Japanese.

Not to take anyting away from any submariners.

Certainly the USA in the Pacific performed sterling service but under much different circumstances.

 

What is the source of the numbers you came up with? Do the sub losses include loss due to accidents and unknown causes or only battle losses ? Are the tonnage sunk by the subs just credited only to submarine alone actions or joint surface fleet and sub actions. Also some subs only layed mines, so it would be hard to tell what their mines sank, if anything.

 

Very true urqh.
However, it makes interesting reading, and it does show how successful the Allies were in the N.Atlantic compared with other anti-submarine campaigns.
The two things that stand out for me, are the actions of RN submarines, and Japanese submarines.
With the RN submarines it shows how great their success's were. Even though they operated for the main in the shallow and heavily mined waters of the North sea and Med,.
As for the Japanese, its shows how bad their operational use of submarines was. All that allied shipping in the Pacific and they only sink 184 ships

 

Sorry TA152
I should have indeed named my source, and given due credit to the author.
Thanks for reminding me
http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

 

Hey Redcoat that is a pretty good site. The Dutch submarines did pretty good with what they had also. I did not even know they had submarines in use !

 

The Japanese policy was mostly to only attack capital ships and not merchant vessels. Their submarines were superior to their American counterparts but their policy was flawed.

Also remember that for the first year or year and a half American torpedoes were faulty, yet in the end they still were able to claim a substantial tonnage of Japanese shipping sunk.

Greg

[ 08. May 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Greg A ]

 

Afaik the Germans sunk 11m tons in the Great War... so 14.5m in WWII sounds not too much for me.

 

Hi Knightmove. Maybe we have to take into account lots of imponderables, improved anti submarine warfare. Progressed since ww1..for one..

How many subs killed by aircraft in ww1 compared to ww2 etc.

Improved convoy procedurs and escorts etc.

Although in earld times of ww2, if the success of the U boats and figures involved had carried on without improved detecton and defensive measures, they U boats would have taken far more tonnage than over same period of ww1 surely.

 

Nice statistics, but statistics are not reliable. You should take into account many other things before considering cyphers. Even if the German submarines were the most succesful were the ones which suffered most casualties and more important, they didn't reach their objective: cut Great Britain's supply lines. In the other hand, the American submarines DID achieve that in the Pacific against the Japanese by late 1944.

And the Japanese submarines, as Greg accurately pointed out, were not as succesful because they did not attack merchant shipping. Only war vessels.

 

And of course German U-boats in WWI and German U-boats in WWII must not be compared. There was no ASDIC in WWI, there were no rocket-depth-charges-launchers in WWI, there were not complete air reconaissence in WWI, there were not adequate aeroplanes to attack submarines and in the first three years of the war the convoys did not exist. Total favourable conditions for U-boat crews.