Pearl Harbor Defense

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...

In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats
built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for
service and only one ever went on patrol.

This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice
building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only
the post war German navy but were extensively used by others.

Some XXI's were for example a long time in use
by:

France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967)
Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514
USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515
USA: U 2513, 3008


There's a difference between evaulation and being
the backbone.

Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used
as agressor subs in exercises. Presumably untill the Porpoise and
Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of
anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to
them untill they had something of their own.



The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
were operational for very long

Do you know for how long?

and certainly didnt
form the backbone of the submarine force. The
USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
RN built the O & P classes

The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the
British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way
they worked and used ballast tanks.

Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way
could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme
diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth
charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats.




The list of ships sunk by this type follows

Start of List
End of List

Not for lack of capabillity:


Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
a sign of a lack of capability

Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial
problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit
your opinions.

The Type XXI was able to demonstrate its abillity to opperate against
heavily defended British capital ships towards the end of WW2 and its
succesfull and extensive use for 20 years after the war by the German
and French Navy showed it was a solid designe with no basic problems.
It was used by the other navies as well: for how long I don't know.

The reality is that the type XXI was a breakthrough in concept.



Keith

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Eunometic" wrote in message


Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used
as agressor subs in exercises.

Actually not, only U-3017 was commissioned and then only for a
short period of trials

Presumably untill the Porpoise and
Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of
anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to
them untill they had something of their own.


Your presumption is incorrect. Post war the RN depended
on the A-Class submarines



The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services
were operational for very long

Do you know for how long?


Yes - the only boat put into service by the RN was scrapped in 1949

and certainly didnt
form the backbone of the submarine force. The
USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the
RN built the O & P classes

The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the
British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way
they worked and used ballast tanks.


Dont be silly. The hull form is entirely different and all submarines
use ballast tanks.

Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way
could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme
diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth
charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats.


Only one of those vunderveapons ever went on patrol
with no kills. Compare and contrast with the record
of the US Fleet submarines.




The list of ships sunk by this type follows

Start of List
End of List

Not for lack of capabillity:


Not being able to put to sea is usually considered
a sign of a lack of capability

Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial
problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit
your opinions.


Only one boat made a patrol - that is no exaggeration.

Keith