WI Admiral Thomas C. Hart had gotten his way?

In the '30s, Hart opposed USN building fleet subs (around 1500 tons surfaced), saying they're too big, & favored something more like the WW1-era U.S. S-boat or Type VII (both around 1000 tons). Some of that, doubtless, was because of treaty tonnage limits (IIRC, a 52,700 ton cap).

WI Hart's proposal had been accepted? IMO, this would have prevented operations off Japan from either Pearl Harbor or Midway for most of the war.:eek:

Even if they were capable of reaching Japan (& I'm dubious), the on-station time couldn't have been more than about a week, which makes it pretty absurd (given a 10 day or two week transit each way:rolleyes: ).

There are proposals for how smaller boats could have been used. I'm of the view SWPA operations were too unproductive & dangerous to make that the standard.

If Hart's approach had been followed, what would have resulted? Would Japan have lasted longer?

Any other thoughts?
 
It might delay commencing operations off the coast of Japan for a while, but with the fall of the Philippines the need for longer range boats would be recognised and they'd soon be ordered.
 
The torpedo tubes in the S-boats were a fair bit smaller than the fleet subs, the Mk.14 torpedo wouldn't fit and they had to keep using the old Mk.10s.

Assuming the 'new' submarines are modernised/repeat S-boats then they'd get the same size tubes and so the Mk.14 programme gets either changed or cancelled. Could be it just ends up making the same mistakes, but maybe they just do a simple upgrade re-engine on the Mk.10 and keep it as is (it still runs deep but doesn't have all the problems of the Mk.14)

Best case the US has larger submarine fleet (more subs in the tonnage limit) with significantly more effective torpedoes from day one. Hard to see that as anything but positive.

Worst case a larger fleet but with the same awful torpedoes. So as said doesn't really matter as they can't sink anything regardless. In that case by the time the US finally fixes the Mk.14 the Gato class subs have been built in response to wartime pressures, so the pre-war submarine fleet doesn't really matter.
 
The torpedo tubes in the S-boats were a fair bit smaller than the fleet subs, the Mk.14 torpedo wouldn't fit and they had to keep using the old Mk.10s.

Assuming the 'new' submarines are modernised/repeat S-boats then they'd get the same size tubes and so the Mk.14 programme gets either changed or cancelled. Could be it just ends up making the same mistakes, but maybe they just do a simple upgrade re-engine on the Mk.10 and keep it as is (it still runs deep but doesn't have all the problems of the Mk.14)

Best case the US has larger submarine fleet (more subs in the tonnage limit) with significantly more effective torpedoes from day one. Hard to see that as anything but positive. ...

With a better torpedo the 'new' S boat in the Midway picket line taking the place of the non existent Nautilus gets a hit on one of the Japanese carriers, discombobulating Nagumo further. Theres probably one or two other examples.
 
Without functioning torpedoes it doesn't really matter much...

The majority of tonnage and ships sunk by subs during WW2 (and WW1 for that matter) was sunk by deck guns or scuttled/blown up by boarding parties. Early in the war the USN rearmed many of it's subs with smaller deck guns and formally discouraged their usage. Later in the war (and after they had fixed the MK 14 torpedos) many subs were rearmed again with older but larger deck guns and more machine guns and auto cannon. By that point when American subs were hunting in waters closer to Japan they found that the majority of shipping was in the form of smaller coastal boats including a lot of sampans and junk type vessels. Those smaller ships just weren't big enough to be worth an expensive torpedo and were usually shelled into oblivion.
 

Deleted member 9338

Yes but junks are not the same tonage as a coach conventional merchant. Based on total tonnage torpedos win out.
 
Understood, Father Maryland. At the end of the war there were so few targets left sub commanders were given the option for a second deck gun to hunt down the few remaining small ships like fishing boats and coastal escorts.

But at this time US torpedoes are a joke. Better subs are useless without an effective weapon, so I honestly don't see them accomplishing much more than they did historically.

OTOH if they can carry more supplies using them for that purpose might be better. Admittedly a sub can't carry much but they did bring in new 3-inch AA shells (a vast improvement over the older model), 50-caliber ammo (which was always in short supply), medical supplies (mostly quinine) and some foodstuffs as well as take out valuable personnel.
 
Hart's idea has merit as long as the Philippines are held, without the Philippines and other close in bases like Guam then you have to have big long range cruiser boats. The Pacific is just too big.
 
Understood, Father Maryland. At the end of the war there were so few targets left sub commanders were given the option for a second deck gun to hunt down the few remaining small ships like fishing boats and coastal escorts.

But at this time US torpedoes are a joke. Better subs are useless without an effective weapon, so I honestly don't see them accomplishing much more than they did historically.

OTOH if they can carry more supplies using them for that purpose might be better. Admittedly a sub can't carry much but they did bring in new 3-inch AA shells (a vast improvement over the older model), 50-caliber ammo (which was always in short supply), medical supplies (mostly quinine) and some foodstuffs as well as take out valuable personnel.

At the end of the war the USS Barb was actually modified with an MLRS. They used it to launch a couple dozen rockets at coastal Japanese targets. On the same mission they actually had a few landing parties go a shore for some good old fashioned sabotage. Among other things they actually managed to blow up a Japanese train. To this day the USS barb is the only submarine to be able to put a train silhouette on it's kill list.

2429234.jpg
 
At the end of the war the USS Barb was actually modified with an MLRS. They used it to launch a couple dozen rockets at coastal Japanese targets. On the same mission they actually had a few landing parties go a shore for some good old fashioned sabotage. Among other things they actually managed to blow up a Japanese train. To this day the USS barb is the only submarine to be able to put a train silhouette on it's kill list.

2429234.jpg

Sounds like they were getting pretty scarce on proper targets by that point.
 
Too true, Alanith. Most of the good remaining targets were trapped behind minefields neither side could cross...
 
It might delay commencing operations off the coast of Japan for a while, but with the fall of the Philippines the need for longer range boats would be recognised and they'd soon be ordered.
What are we getting? Repeat Cachalots? Or Dolphins? Cachalots are still kind of small for transpacific operations... They might get Mark X fish, instead of Mark XIVs, tho, so not a dead loss.

The smaller boats might still suffer the MAN/HOR diesel fiasco.:angry:

Being forced to operate out of Oz, they're also going to be in the hands of both MacArthur & Fife: fewer on the firing line, thanks to guerrilla ops, & higher losses are thus almost guaranteed.:mad: Lower impact on Japan is, too.:rolleyes:

I said somewhere else it's really hard to make the Pacific War better for Japan. This is the best way I've seen.:rolleyes:
The torpedo tubes in the S-boats were a fair bit smaller than the fleet subs, the Mk.14 torpedo wouldn't fit and they had to keep using the old Mk.10s.

Assuming the 'new' submarines are modernised/repeat S-boats then they'd get the same size tubes and so the Mk.14 programme gets either changed or cancelled. Could be it just ends up making the same mistakes, but maybe they just do a simple upgrade re-engine on the Mk.10 and keep it as is (it still runs deep but doesn't have all the problems of the Mk.14)
Quite right. That said, the Mark X also had a smaller warhead. IDK if that can be remedied with improved explosives. It not, sinkings might not be much improved over the lousy Mark XIVs, due to that reduced explosive power.
Best case the US has larger submarine fleet (more subs in the tonnage limit) with significantly more effective torpedoes from day one. Hard to see that as anything but positive.
Not so simple, as noted. The basing issue is bigger than the Mark XIV, in terms of sinkings. And the patrol areas smaller boats put off limits were far & away better: the Luzon & Formosa Strait sinking rate was about double anything else from Pearl, which makes it on the order of triple SWPA.:eek:
Worst case a larger fleet but with the same awful torpedoes. So as said doesn't really matter as they can't sink anything regardless. In that case by the time the US finally fixes the Mk.14 the Gato class subs have been built in response to wartime pressures, so the pre-war submarine fleet doesn't really matter.
That's likely. However, let me throw a wrench in it: the late war design, intended to replace the Tenches, had a mandated trainable deck tube mount.:eek::confounded::rolleyes: (It was for ASW fish, AIUI.) TTL, without the ASW fish, that might not obtain, but...

Also, as noted, TTL's *fleet boat might end up being too small.:eek::confounded:
Based on total tonnage torpedos win out.
Especially in PTO. USN doctrine heavily emphasized torpedo use; guns were very much a secondary, & very much a rare preference, until near the end, when there were almost no torpedo-worthy targets--outside ops in SWPA...& using guns in SWPA, with the high risk of Japanese aircraft, ain't the smartest thing you can do.:eek:
 
IIRC several British and Commonwealth submarines shelled trains in WW2, Particularly on the Mediterianian coasts, HMS Turbulent certainly bombarded an Italian train and scored hits in 1942 . So to say that the USS Bab is the only submarine entitled to have a train on her trophy flag is I think a bit of a Yank Wank
 
IIRC several British and Commonwealth submarines shelled trains in WW2, Particularly on the Mediterianian coasts, HMS Turbulent certainly bombarded an Italian train and scored hits in 1942 . So to say that the USS Bab is the only submarine entitled to have a train on her trophy flag is I think a bit of a Yank Wank
I take it you mean Barb?

Since E-11 blew up a viaduct in WW1, I'd say Barb's claim only applies to USN boats.
 
Top